Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Judge Nathan Chooses Transparency When Dealing With Juror #50 (9/27/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Judge Nathan Chooses Transparency When Dealing With Juror #50 (9/27/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

0:01
Speaker 1: All right, so let's jump into this law and crime article,
0:04
Speaker 1: and let's see what the author, Jerry Lamb, has to say. Headline.
0:09
Speaker 1: All right, so, like I said, this article was authored
0:12
Speaker 1: by Jerry Lamb. A federal judge in Manhattan on Thursday
0:29
Speaker 1: ruled on a series of redactions proposed by Ghislaine Maxwell
0:33
Speaker 1: and prosecutors regarding a compilation of transcripts submitted under seal
0:38
Speaker 1: by the government last month. And this is what I
0:41
Speaker 1: talk about a lot on the podcast. We don't really
0:44
Speaker 1: know what's going on behind the scenes until we know
0:48
Speaker 1: what's going on behind the scenes. So there's filings and
0:52
Speaker 1: the prosecution's cooking up all sorts of stuff, I'm sure.
0:55
Speaker 1: The defense has their plan going. And until this stuff
0:58
Speaker 1: is actually on the docket and filed, we don't really
1:01
Speaker 1: know what's what. So I am sure that under seal,
1:07
Speaker 1: there is a frantic pace taking place in the court
1:11
Speaker 1: here of, you know, different documents being filed, transcripts being filed,
1:17
Speaker 1: and this sort of legwork occurring. Now, I don't really
1:23
Speaker 1: think that at this point, any name should be redacted unless,
1:27
Speaker 1: of course, like I was just saying, it impacts the
1:32
Speaker 1: legal portion of the case. But if you're just trying
1:35
Speaker 1: to save people from being embarrassed at this point, well,
1:38
Speaker 1: I think that ship has sailed. And personally, you shouldn't
1:41
Speaker 1: be hanging out with someone like Jeffrey Epstein anyway. So
1:46
Speaker 1: if you're being outed for that, pretty much just karma
1:50
Speaker 1: catching up to you, in my opinion. After reviewing arguments
1:55
Speaker 1: from both sides, U.S. District Judge Allison J. Nathan allowed
1:59
Speaker 1: most of the government's redactions to remain in place over
2:03
Speaker 1: Maxwell's objections while also adding several additional redactions at her request.
2:10
Speaker 1: So without knowing what they redacted, we really can't go,
2:15
Speaker 1: you know, too deep one way or the other and,
2:18
Speaker 1: you know, talk about what is in these transcripts because
2:22
Speaker 1: we don't know. And anybody acting like they do know, well,
2:25
Speaker 1: they're lying. Unless, of course, it's somebody that has access
2:29
Speaker 1: to the case, a prosecutor, the lawyers, blah, blah, blah.
2:32
Speaker 1: But for the rest of us, we're left to just
2:35
Speaker 1: try and figure out what's what. Now, we can speculate
2:40
Speaker 1: about what would be redacted, right? What sort of, something
2:44
Speaker 1: that is so impure, right? Whatever that means. Something that
2:48
Speaker 1: is so sensational and impure that it has to be redacted.
2:52
Speaker 1: What in the hell could that possibly even mean? I mean,
2:58
Speaker 1: I don't have any idea, honestly. Usually I'll throw those
3:00
Speaker 1: kinds of questions out there as kind of like a
3:02
Speaker 1: lead-in for you, but I really honestly have no idea.
3:06
Speaker 1: I mean, what could be so impure and sensational that
3:14
Speaker 1: the judge would say, look, we're going to have to
3:17
Speaker 1: redact this and we're going to have to make sure
3:18
Speaker 1: that the public doesn't see it. I don't know what
3:21
Speaker 1: it could possibly be. And honestly, I don't even have
3:25
Speaker 1: any sort of speculation at this point on what the
3:27
Speaker 1: redactions could be. I would have to see it before
3:31
Speaker 1: I just popped off at the lip. Maxwell's legal team
3:41
Speaker 1: in January filed 12 motions requesting that the court, among
3:45
Speaker 1: other things, dismiss all of the charges relating to her
3:48
Speaker 1: alleged role as a recruiter of young girls for infamous
3:52
Speaker 1: and since-deceased sex offender, pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein. The government responded
3:59
Speaker 1: in February with an omnibus memorandum of law opposing Maxwell's motions,
4:04
Speaker 1: all of which were filed under seal pending rulings on
4:08
Speaker 1: the redactions. So this is like a bunch of like legalese, right?
4:12
Speaker 1: A bunch of, you know, just basically the way the
4:16
Speaker 1: court system works. You have all kinds of filings that
4:19
Speaker 1: are done under seal. You have ones that are obviously
4:24
Speaker 1: on the public docket. And then it's up to the
4:27
Speaker 1: judge to decide what's what. So that's what we're seeing here.
4:33
Speaker 1: And we know for a fact, at least I know
4:35
Speaker 1: for a fact, that there is a lot of maneuvering
4:42
Speaker 1: going on behind the scenes when it comes to this case.
4:45
Speaker 1: And we're going to see a lot more of this
4:48
Speaker 1: kind of stuff come to the surface as the case
4:52
Speaker 1: matures and the government is required to provide more evidence, right?
4:57
Speaker 1: They're going to have to provide some meat. They can't
4:59
Speaker 1: just provide, you know, what they think happened. The government's
5:03
Speaker 1: going to need to provide evidence. And we're getting to
5:07
Speaker 1: that portion of this case. The government... Excuse me, we
5:13
Speaker 1: read that. The government argued that its redactions were required
5:17
Speaker 1: in order to protect the integrity of its ongoing criminal
5:20
Speaker 1: investigation into Maxwell and to protect the privacy interests of
5:24
Speaker 1: third parties. So... That's pretty loaded right there, that statement.
5:30
Speaker 1: The government is arguing that they needed those redactions to
5:33
Speaker 1: stay in place, that they don't want those names to
5:36
Speaker 1: be made public because it could hamper the integrity of
5:41
Speaker 1: their investigation. And I guess you could look at this
5:45
Speaker 1: several different ways, but for me, the trigger words are
5:49
Speaker 1: ongoing investigation. So what that means is the investigation is
5:53
Speaker 1: obviously still going on into Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirators and those
5:59
Speaker 1: that are alleged to have taken part so the government
6:05
Speaker 1: not wanting to reveal its hand early my speculation here
6:09
Speaker 1: by the way is keeping all of this stuff redacted
6:13
Speaker 1: and they're trying to keep everything on the back burner
6:19
Speaker 1: until the very last moment when they can spring it
6:22
Speaker 1: all at once that's my guess right, that they're going to,
6:26
Speaker 1: anybody else who's caught up in this case who's going
6:28
Speaker 1: to get charged, I think that they're going to announce
6:31
Speaker 1: those charges relatively quickly, meaning in succession, right, when they start.
6:38
Speaker 1: You won't just hear like, oh, Ghislaine Maxwell got arrested,
6:41
Speaker 1: and then a year and a half later hear about
6:43
Speaker 1: somebody else. I think that once we see one other
6:47
Speaker 1: person get arrested in this case, as far as, you
6:52
Speaker 1: or the real close co-conspirators, it'll be a quick procession
6:58
Speaker 1: of people getting snatched up. And I think the government's
7:02
Speaker 1: strategy here is, again, I do not have any inside information, folks.
7:05
Speaker 1: This is my guess. I think that the government's strategy
7:08
Speaker 1: here is to wait them out till the very end
7:11
Speaker 1: and then launch this on them, set it in their lap,
7:14
Speaker 1: and not give them all that much time to prepare
7:17
Speaker 1: before Maxwell's trial begins. So, you know, that looks like
7:22
Speaker 1: the typical kind of tactic the government will use. They're
7:25
Speaker 1: trying to make it as hard as possible on you.
7:27
Speaker 1: And usually that's the kind of shit that makes me
7:30
Speaker 1: apoplectic with the government. But in this case, if it's
7:33
Speaker 1: good for the goose, it's good for the gander. Judge
7:41
Speaker 1: Nathan granted most of the government's requests, reasoning that the
7:45
Speaker 1: redactions were based on legitimate interests to overcome the presumption
7:49
Speaker 1: of public access to judicial documents. The presumption of public
7:55
Speaker 1: access to judicial documents? What does that even mean, judge?
8:01
Speaker 1: What are you trying to run, some kind of private
8:03
Speaker 1: hearing here? I don't understand what that even means, honestly.
8:08
Speaker 1: The public should presume that it has access to legal cases,
8:14
Speaker 1: to court cases. I mean, it is our tax dollar
8:17
Speaker 1: that's paying you, isn't it? You are a federal employee,
8:22
Speaker 1: are you not? You are being paid by the American people, yeah?
8:28
Speaker 1: So when they show up and they knock on the
8:29
Speaker 1: door and they want some information, these government agencies and
8:33
Speaker 1: these judges especially, well, they better be a little bit
8:37
Speaker 1: more forthcoming. Exhibit 1 contains a single redaction, the name
8:43
Speaker 1: of a third party, and the court concludes that that
8:46
Speaker 1: individual's personal privacy interests outweigh the presumption of access that
8:52
Speaker 1: exists as the limited portion of the exhibit, Judge Nathan wrote.
8:56
Speaker 1: All right, so whoever this person is, according to Judge Nathan,
9:00
Speaker 1: their privacy as a third party in this case, witness
9:05
Speaker 1: or whatever, is more important than the presumption of of
9:10
Speaker 1: the public getting a look. And that is the way
9:14
Speaker 1: Judge Nathan ruled here. I disagree 100% with that ruling. Again,
9:21
Speaker 1: unless it affects the integrity of the case, unless it
9:24
Speaker 1: will affect somebody getting a fair trial, then I think
9:28
Speaker 1: that the whole keeping things transparent is probably not the
9:33
Speaker 1: best course of action for our court system as a whole.
9:38
Speaker 1: But in this case especially, considering the government's track record
9:44
Speaker 1: the proposed redactions to exhibit seven are similar in that
9:48
Speaker 1: they seek to protect from public access only the names
9:52
Speaker 1: and contact information of third parties here too the interest
9:57
Speaker 1: in protecting the safety and privacy of those individuals outweighs
10:01
Speaker 1: the presumption of access that attaches to those documents. What
10:06
Speaker 1: does that even mean? The safety of those individuals? Like
10:10
Speaker 1: people are going to go and beat down their door
10:12
Speaker 1: or whatever? You know, it just, what it smells of is,
10:20
Speaker 1: you know, a more buddy-buddy, oh yeah, don't worry, we're
10:23
Speaker 1: not going to let your name get out there. When
10:27
Speaker 1: in reality, all of this stuff should be laid bare.
10:31
Speaker 1: The whole entire situation should be laid bare. And even,
10:36
Speaker 1: like I've said a million times, those grand jury documents
10:39
Speaker 1: as well should be brought forward and should be put
10:42
Speaker 1: into the public sphere. Because... Look, they've, in my opinion anyway,
10:49
Speaker 1: the government has lost the right for us to just
10:52
Speaker 1: assume that they're going to do the right thing. Because
10:57
Speaker 1: their track record, and I'm just talking about in this
10:59
Speaker 1: case specifically, I'm not going to go on a rant
11:02
Speaker 1: about as a whole, just in this case specifically, has
11:05
Speaker 1: been disgusting. So why would they think that anyone's going
11:09
Speaker 1: to believe what they have to say about this case?
11:14
Speaker 1: Transparency is the best way forward for everybody. Nathan rejected
11:24
Speaker 1: Maxwell's objection to redactions containing information that has been made
11:28
Speaker 1: public by other means where such information still relates to
11:32
Speaker 1: the privacy interests of third parties. So Maxwell was trying
11:36
Speaker 1: to object and get everything redacted as far as third
11:40
Speaker 1: party names is what it looks like here. And, um,
11:45
Speaker 1: According to the judge, the stuff that has already hit
11:48
Speaker 1: the public, the public sphere, the public square, well, that
11:54
Speaker 1: stuff obviously is not going to be redacted. At least
11:58
Speaker 1: some of the redactions to which the defendant objects relate
12:01
Speaker 1: to private family affairs of a third party, a factor
12:05
Speaker 1: that weighs more heavily against access than conduct affecting a
12:10
Speaker 1: substantial portion of the public. What the hell? Judge Nathan is...
12:15
Speaker 1: I don't even know what to say about that. I mean,
12:19
Speaker 1: so this guy's or girl's embarrassment over their involvement with
12:24
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein outweighs the public interest of the case? Is
12:28
Speaker 1: that what I'm getting here? It sure seems to be
12:31
Speaker 1: the message that Judge Nathan is trying to pass off here, folks.
12:35
Speaker 1: And it's kind of weird, honestly. Nathan wrote, citing to
12:41
Speaker 1: controlling precedent from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, And
12:45
Speaker 1: though the defendant contends that some of the information contained
12:49
Speaker 1: in the redactions is public, she furnishes no evidence to
12:52
Speaker 1: that effect. As a result, the court concludes that the
12:56
Speaker 1: significant privacy interests at stake justify the limited and narrowly
13:01
Speaker 1: tailored redactions contained in Exhibit 5. So Maxwell was asking
13:06
Speaker 1: for the whole entire universe, and Nathan gave her just
13:11
Speaker 1: a couple of the planets, it looks like here. by
13:14
Speaker 1: keeping the names redacted, you know, the third party, whatever
13:17
Speaker 1: the hell that means. I think it would be nice
13:20
Speaker 1: to get some clarity on what that even means, the
13:22
Speaker 1: third party. Is it a witness? Is it somebody who
13:25
Speaker 1: has some knowledge of the case? Is it somebody who
13:28
Speaker 1: themselves are under investigation? It'd be nice to know that.
13:35
Speaker 1: Judge Nathan, citing privacy interests, did side with Maxwell... on
13:39
Speaker 1: several additional redactions proposed to transcripts submitted as part of
13:44
Speaker 1: the government's filing, finding that to make those details public
13:48
Speaker 1: would only tend to cater to an appetite for the
13:51
Speaker 1: sensational and impure. Basically, Judge Nathan is calling the people
13:57
Speaker 1: who want information in this case people who are sensational
14:02
Speaker 1: and in search of the impure. I would disagree with her.
14:08
Speaker 1: supposition there, and I would like to present a counter.
14:14
Speaker 1: People don't trust you, Judge Nathan. They don't trust the system,
14:17
Speaker 1: and they don't trust the court to do the right thing,
14:21
Speaker 1: especially when you're dealing with another one of your elite friends. So,
14:26
Speaker 1: forgive people if they demand transparency, but guess what? As
14:30
Speaker 1: a federal judge, you better get used to it, because
14:33
Speaker 1: moving forward, you better damn well believe that That we're
14:38
Speaker 1: awake now. And the court system. The prison system. And
14:43
Speaker 1: then all of these other little circles. That all of
14:46
Speaker 1: you people operate in. Well. We're paying attention now. Those
14:55
Speaker 1: portions of the transcript. which were redacted in the civil matter,
14:59
Speaker 1: concern privacy interests and their disclosure would merely serve to
15:03
Speaker 1: cater to a craving for that which is sensational and impure,
15:07
Speaker 1: she wrote. The court thus concludes that such redactions are justified.
15:13
Speaker 1: Kind of looks to me like she's trying to throw
15:15
Speaker 1: Maxwell and her team a bone here, right? That's kind
15:18
Speaker 1: of what it looks like. Now, again, that's just the
15:24
Speaker 1: surface estimation for me. I would have to actually see
15:27
Speaker 1: what the redactions are to have a real opinion, right?
15:30
Speaker 1: A deeper opinion. But from the surface level and going
15:35
Speaker 1: on what we know and just transparency as an overall
15:40
Speaker 1: issue in this case, I want it to be completely
15:44
Speaker 1: and utterly transparent. And if you're embarrassed about your hanging
15:48
Speaker 1: out with Jeffrey Epstein or your role with Jeffrey Epstein,
15:51
Speaker 1: that sounds like a you problem, not a societal problem.
15:58
Speaker 1: It's unclear what Judge Nathan has redacted, but Judge Loretta Preska,
16:02
Speaker 1: the federal judge in the civil case, ruled on January
16:05
Speaker 1: 19th that details Maxwell provided about her consensual sexual relationships
16:11
Speaker 1: with adults would remain redacted in publicly released versions of
16:15
Speaker 1: deposition transcripts. See Miami Herald. Judge orders release of more
16:20
Speaker 1: Ghislaine Maxwell records minus salacious details. And it looks like
16:24
Speaker 1: a concerted effort by the federal court court here to
16:29
Speaker 1: keep these sort of details to a minimum and to
16:33
Speaker 1: try and do an end around almost on Maxwell's team
16:38
Speaker 1: from them crying that they didn't get a fair shake
16:40
Speaker 1: at a fair trial. So that certainly could be the
16:43
Speaker 1: route that the court is going here. And that would
16:46
Speaker 1: be what you would think, right? But unfortunately, with what
16:51
Speaker 1: we know of the track record of the federal government
16:54
Speaker 1: in this case, it's hard not to be cynical when
16:56
Speaker 1: you see something like this. Obviously, I'll take a wait-and-see approach,
17:01
Speaker 1: but on the surface, my visceral reaction to it is
17:05
Speaker 1: it's kind of ridiculous, honestly. Although the prurient interests of
17:14
Speaker 1: some may be left unsatisfied as a result, Ms. Maxwell's
17:18
Speaker 1: interest in keeping private the details of her sexual relationships
17:22
Speaker 1: with consenting adults warrants the sealing of those portions of
17:26
Speaker 1: her testimony, said Preska. And again, when it comes to
17:30
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff, what you do with consenting adults
17:34
Speaker 1: really isn't my business. I really don't care, honestly. What
17:37
Speaker 1: consenting adults do with each other in the privacy of
17:40
Speaker 1: their home, I really don't care. But when you're dealing
17:46
Speaker 1: with somebody like Elaine Maxwell, you have to wonder, does
17:49
Speaker 1: it fit the overall picture? And are we leaving a
17:52
Speaker 1: few pieces of the puzzle out? Several other redactions proposed
17:59
Speaker 1: by the government were rejected at Maxwell's request after Judge
18:03
Speaker 1: Nathan found that prosecutors failed to provide a reasonable basis
18:08
Speaker 1: as to why its investigation, at this stage of the matter,
18:11
Speaker 1: would be imperiled by the disclosure of the information regarding
18:15
Speaker 1: how it obtained the information in question and the requested
18:19
Speaker 1: redactions are far from narrowly tailored. So... I guess it
18:25
Speaker 1: was like an overall redaction that the government asked for
18:29
Speaker 1: or a very big portion of it to be redacted.
18:33
Speaker 1: And it looks like Presca, I mean, excuse me, Nathan
18:39
Speaker 1: is siding with Maxwell here and is pretty much telling
18:41
Speaker 1: the government that she wants him to put up or
18:43
Speaker 1: shut up a little bit and show her a little something.
18:46
Speaker 1: That's what it kind of looks like here. I mean,
18:49
Speaker 1: according to her, they haven't shown her enough evidence to
18:55
Speaker 1: why this stuff should be redacted. So that's why it
18:59
Speaker 1: looks like she sided with Maxwell here. As a result,
19:04
Speaker 1: the court denies the government's redaction's requests in pages 1
19:08
Speaker 1: through 128 and denies its request to file exhibits 8
19:12
Speaker 1: and 9 under seal, since those documents relate to this
19:15
Speaker 1: very issue and the same reasoning applies to them, Nathan wrote.
19:19
Speaker 1: the court will allow the government to seek more tailored
19:22
Speaker 1: redactions before the redactions are removed on the public docket.
19:26
Speaker 1: All right, so this is the first salvo, right? So
19:28
Speaker 1: the government is going to get a chance to go
19:30
Speaker 1: back to the drawing board and come back with the
19:33
Speaker 1: red pen or black pen in this case and offer
19:36
Speaker 1: up some more redactions. Well, from where I'm at and
19:42
Speaker 1: the way I'm looking at this case, I understand why
19:45
Speaker 1: the government's trying to keep things redacted here if they're
19:48
Speaker 1: going to use the strategy that I was discussing and
19:51
Speaker 1: they plan on dropping a one-time Moab on all of
19:55
Speaker 1: these co-conspirators. But if that's not the case, then I
19:59
Speaker 1: have no idea what the hell these people are doing.
20:02
Speaker 1: And the fact that there's going to be less transparency
20:07
Speaker 1: in the case certainly is not a good thing in
20:10
Speaker 1: my opinion. So we'll have to see if we get
20:13
Speaker 1: more details, right? Again, this is just a surface level
20:18
Speaker 1: opinion on my first reaction of the information. So when
20:23
Speaker 1: we get some more clarity, if we get more clarity,
20:25
Speaker 1: if we get some more context, you know I'll dive
20:27
Speaker 1: back in and we'll bang it out. But as of
20:31
Speaker 1: right now, you all know how it is and how
20:34
Speaker 1: I feel. I think that transparency is one of the
20:39
Speaker 1: most important things in this case. And losing any more transparency,
20:45
Speaker 1: on the surface level anyway, is not something that I
20:48
Speaker 1: find to be a good thing. So we'll see how
20:53
Speaker 1: this all breaks out. And I'm sure in the next
20:56
Speaker 1: few days, we'll get some more court filings. And obviously,
21:02
Speaker 1: we'll get a response from the prosecution. And once all
21:05
Speaker 1: of that happens, well, we'll be right here to pick
21:10
Speaker 1: it back up. If you'd like to contact me, you
21:12
Speaker 1: can do that at bobbycappucci at protonmail.com. That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I at protonmail.com.
21:22
Speaker 1: You can also find me on Twitter at B-O-B-B-Y underscore C-A-P-U-C-C-I.
21:28
Speaker 1: All of the links that go with this episode can
21:31
Speaker 1: be found in the description box. And to everybody who...
21:35
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
21:40
Speaker 1: Juror number 50, Scotty David, had his time in front
21:43
Speaker 1: of Judge Nathan today and explained what went down during
21:49
Speaker 1: the questionnaire process. Now, according to Scotty David, this was
21:53
Speaker 1: all just a mistake. He rushed through this and he
21:56
Speaker 1: had no ill intentions or he had no intentions of
22:00
Speaker 1: trying to put himself on the jury or inserting himself
22:04
Speaker 1: into the case. It was all just an accident and
22:07
Speaker 1: it was due to him rushing. So the question's going
22:10
Speaker 1: to become, does Judge Nathan believe him? Doesn't matter what
22:13
Speaker 1: we believe, right? Not one bit. It's all going to
22:17
Speaker 1: come down to what Judge Nathan believes. And then after,
22:20
Speaker 1: you know that if, say, there is no mistrial declared,
22:25
Speaker 1: you know that Maxwell and her team are going to
22:27
Speaker 1: appeal this anyway. You know they're going to appeal it
22:30
Speaker 1: and try and fight it out in an appeals court. But,
22:33
Speaker 1: unfortunately for them... they might find Judge Nathan waiting for
22:37
Speaker 1: them on that appeals court as well. So they're really
22:40
Speaker 1: not in a great position here if they don't get
22:43
Speaker 1: this flipped and turned into a mistrial, which again, I'm
22:47
Speaker 1: certainly not a lawyer, right? And from my perspective, it
22:51
Speaker 1: looks like there's a lot there to sink your teeth into.
22:54
Speaker 1: But when you listen to all of the legalese and
22:56
Speaker 1: the lawyers and prosecutors, it's so hard to get one
23:01
Speaker 1: of these... convictions overturned and to get a new trial
23:05
Speaker 1: based on something like this, that it's not really a
23:09
Speaker 1: commonplace event, if you will. So while it looks really bad, right,
23:14
Speaker 1: if this guy lied to get on a jury, how
23:16
Speaker 1: much worse can it possibly be than that? But according
23:20
Speaker 1: to the law, you know, there's wiggle room, I guess.
23:23
Speaker 1: And it's going to come down to Judge Nathan and
23:26
Speaker 1: what she determines went down, what went down here. So
23:30
Speaker 1: with that said, why don't we jump into this article
23:33
Speaker 1: from the Daily Beast? And the author is Kate Bricklett. Headline,
23:38
Speaker 1: one of the biggest mistakes. Ghislaine Maxwell juror admits to
23:42
Speaker 1: judge he messed up. Now, look, if this is an
23:45
Speaker 1: honest mistake and he really made an honest mistake, I
23:48
Speaker 1: don't know how that really happens when you have this
23:51
Speaker 1: kind of questionnaire and you shouldn't be flying through it.
23:53
Speaker 1: But if it was an honest mistake. then I don't
23:57
Speaker 1: know how that is any better, honestly, for the person
24:01
Speaker 1: on trial. Let's just say it wasn't Ghislaine Maxwell. Let's
24:04
Speaker 1: just say it's, you know, insert run-of-the-mill crime here, and
24:09
Speaker 1: this is something that happens in that case. Well, looking
24:13
Speaker 1: at it as a non-biased observer, you'd say to yourself,
24:16
Speaker 1: at least I would, what in the hell is going
24:18
Speaker 1: on here? How in the hell did this happen, right? So...
24:23
Speaker 1: When you're looking at it from this perspective and him
24:27
Speaker 1: saying that he messed up, I guess, you know, you
24:31
Speaker 1: can give him the benefit of the doubt or whatever
24:33
Speaker 1: you want to do. But for me, it just does
24:35
Speaker 1: not look good. The optics don't look good. The fact
24:38
Speaker 1: that he says he rushed through the questionnaire, that doesn't
24:42
Speaker 1: look good. So I'm torn, right? And I'm glad I'm
24:47
Speaker 1: not the one making the decision one way or the other,
24:49
Speaker 1: to be honest with you. A juror in Ghislaine Maxwell's
24:53
Speaker 1: sex trafficking trial was questioned under oath on Tuesday about
24:57
Speaker 1: why he didn't reveal his history of childhood sexual abuse
25:01
Speaker 1: on a jury questionnaire and about whether it impacted his
25:05
Speaker 1: ability to to be impartial in the case. Now, look,
25:08
Speaker 1: we've heard from him and he's talked about, you know,
25:11
Speaker 1: what he said after the trial, obviously. And we heard
25:14
Speaker 1: the interview. So none of this is really new. He
25:18
Speaker 1: says that he was impartial, that, you know, his circumstances
25:23
Speaker 1: when he was younger didn't affect his decision making. Right.
25:28
Speaker 1: It wasn't like he had an ax to grind. That's
25:31
Speaker 1: what he's saying. But if you're on the defense, you're
25:34
Speaker 1: saying to yourself, well, that's all fine and well, you
25:36
Speaker 1: can say that, but how far does that go? What
25:39
Speaker 1: is that worth? Manhattan federal judge Allison Nathan also asked
25:45
Speaker 1: Juror 50 about his handful of media interviews shortly after
25:50
Speaker 1: the British socialite convicted sex offender, convicted human trafficker, Jeffrey
25:54
Speaker 1: Epstein's accomplice, guilty verdict. I figured a little article about
25:59
Speaker 1: a juror giving their experience wouldn't be record-breaking or really
26:03
Speaker 1: in the news at all, said the juror, who went
26:05
Speaker 1: by his first and middle name, Scotty David, in the press. Oh,
26:09
Speaker 1: come on, that's playing a little bit ridiculous there. You
26:12
Speaker 1: didn't think that going to give an interview in a
26:15
Speaker 1: case like this would be explosive? Of course it would be.
26:19
Speaker 1: Stop it. Now Maxwell is fighting for a retrial in
26:24
Speaker 1: wake of Scottie's January media tour, arguing he never would
26:28
Speaker 1: have made it to the panel had he truthfully answered
26:31
Speaker 1: the 50-question juror form used to weed out potential bias.
26:36
Speaker 1: The juror was contrite on the stand, saying he never
26:38
Speaker 1: intended to mislead anyone, and he didn't lie to get
26:42
Speaker 1: on the jury for the notorious sex trafficking case. Again,
26:45
Speaker 1: that's his word, right? And you could either believe him
26:48
Speaker 1: or not, and it doesn't matter one way or the other.
26:51
Speaker 1: Because all that's really going to matter at this point
26:54
Speaker 1: is what Judge Nathan thinks. So did he convince her?
26:58
Speaker 1: Didn't he convince her? We're going to have to wait
27:00
Speaker 1: and find out. But I think the point is we
27:04
Speaker 1: shouldn't even be in a situation like this, right? Just
27:07
Speaker 1: be honest on the questionnaire. This was one of the
27:14
Speaker 1: biggest mistakes I've ever made in my life, the juror testified. Yeah,
27:17
Speaker 1: I would guess so. All of this negative press and
27:20
Speaker 1: You know, it definitely can't be fun. Nobody wants to
27:23
Speaker 1: deal with that. And look, let's be very clear. Someone
27:26
Speaker 1: who was abused when they were younger, it can't be
27:30
Speaker 1: an easy road to travel, right? But you can't be
27:34
Speaker 1: lying to get on Jerry's, man. And if that's the
27:37
Speaker 1: case here, and it throws this all into disarray, then
27:41
Speaker 1: it's really a huge setback. for these survivors. And we
27:46
Speaker 1: have to keep that in perspective. And remember, that's the
27:48
Speaker 1: top priority, right? Them getting justice. And if this goes
27:52
Speaker 1: into a mistrial, that the rug of justice has once
27:55
Speaker 1: again been pulled out from underneath them. So instead of
27:59
Speaker 1: talking about this nonsense, like I said earlier, we should
28:01
Speaker 1: be talking about sentencing right now and maybe indicting some
28:05
Speaker 1: of the other co-conspirators. If I lied deliberately, I wouldn't
28:10
Speaker 1: have told a soul, he later added. and apologized for
28:13
Speaker 1: wasting people's time and money. Well, that's a good point, right?
28:17
Speaker 1: If you're lying, usually you want to keep it secret.
28:19
Speaker 1: But is that strong enough to sway the judge? Scotty
28:24
Speaker 1: claimed that he didn't realize he made an error on
28:26
Speaker 1: the jury form until a Daily Mail reporter peppered him
28:29
Speaker 1: with questions about it in a video interview. Did I
28:32
Speaker 1: just mess up something entirely? The juror recalled thinking he
28:36
Speaker 1: said he was shocked and didn't know he'd missed a
28:39
Speaker 1: question asking if he was a victim of sexual abuse. Again, look,
28:44
Speaker 1: we can't sit here and say that he's lying. We
28:47
Speaker 1: don't have definitive proof. Nobody was sitting there and with
28:50
Speaker 1: him while he was filling out his questionnaire, right? Only
28:53
Speaker 1: he knows if he did it deliberately or not. But
28:57
Speaker 1: it doesn't look good. The optics don't look good is
28:59
Speaker 1: all I'm saying. And from my perspective, after all of
29:02
Speaker 1: these years following this case, this is the kind of thing,
29:05
Speaker 1: the sort of shit, these people love to sink their
29:08
Speaker 1: teeth into. Loopholes and technicalities. How many times do I
29:12
Speaker 1: have to say it? Nathan ordered the prosecution and defense
29:17
Speaker 1: to file briefings on the juror's testimony as it relates
29:20
Speaker 1: to Maxwell's request for a new trial by March 15th.
29:24
Speaker 1: So March 15th is a day that there should be
29:28
Speaker 1: some briefings filed for us to take a look at.
29:31
Speaker 1: Give us a little more meat on the bone, a
29:33
Speaker 1: little more context. Which is perfect because that's two days
29:36
Speaker 1: after my birthday, so I'll be home from my little trip.
29:43
Speaker 1: Last week, Scottie's counsel indicated he would invoke his Fifth
29:47
Speaker 1: Amendment right against self-incrimination at the hearing, and prosecutors indicated
29:52
Speaker 1: they were making an application to grant him immunity for
29:55
Speaker 1: his testimony. By Tuesday, the Department of Justice granted that request.
30:00
Speaker 1: So all that means is they're compelling his testimony by
30:04
Speaker 1: giving him immunity from the crime of whatever it might be,
30:08
Speaker 1: perjury or lying or whatever the hell the feds want
30:12
Speaker 1: to cook up. So nothing more, nothing less there. That's
30:15
Speaker 1: exactly what that is. The juror made headlines soon after
30:20
Speaker 1: Maxwell was found guilty. In late December, Maxwell was convicted
30:24
Speaker 1: of aiding her ex-boyfriend, co-conspirator, fellow child abuser, Jeffrey Epstein's
30:29
Speaker 1: underage sex ring in the 1990s and early 2000s. Four
30:34
Speaker 1: survivors took the stand at the high-profile criminal trial and
30:38
Speaker 1: claimed Maxwell groomed them for the multimillionaire, pedophile, predator, and
30:43
Speaker 1: sometimes participated in the sexual abuse herself. Jurors deliberated for
30:48
Speaker 1: six days before finding Maxwell guilty on five of six
30:52
Speaker 1: charges related to child sex trafficking. Well, we all know. Look,
30:58
Speaker 1: anyone who followed that understands, even without Scotty David pressuring
31:02
Speaker 1: these other jurors like he said he did, I don't
31:06
Speaker 1: understand how anyone could come to the conclusion that Maxwell
31:09
Speaker 1: was innocent with the evidence that we saw. Now, if
31:13
Speaker 1: I'm missing something, please point it out. But even with
31:15
Speaker 1: them trying to punch holes in the testimony of the
31:18
Speaker 1: survivors about their memory and bringing out the memory expert,
31:22
Speaker 1: we saw how that all fizzled out. So, again, I
31:27
Speaker 1: don't think Scotty David is enough to sway it one
31:32
Speaker 1: way or the other, his telling of what occurred in
31:36
Speaker 1: his own life anyway. Days after the verdict, lawyers for
31:43
Speaker 1: the 60-year-old British socialite, convicted sexual trafficker, a human trafficker
31:48
Speaker 1: you mean, argued the verdict was in jeopardy because of
31:51
Speaker 1: Scotty's statements in the press. The Independent, the first to
31:55
Speaker 1: publish a feature on Scotty, revealed the 35-year-old Manhattanite was
31:59
Speaker 1: himself a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. a fact unknown
32:04
Speaker 1: to the court because he didn't disclose it on his
32:06
Speaker 1: jury questionnaire. Now, again, look, that's bad optics, right? Doesn't
32:10
Speaker 1: look good for Scotty David. Doesn't look good for the prosecution.
32:14
Speaker 1: And when you have great lawyers like Maxwell's, they're going
32:17
Speaker 1: to sink their teeth in and they're going to try
32:20
Speaker 1: and do whatever they can to manipulate this situation and
32:23
Speaker 1: turn it into a W for them and their million
32:26
Speaker 1: dollar paying client. This verdict is for all the victims,
32:30
Speaker 1: Scotty told the UK based outlet. For those who testified,
32:34
Speaker 1: for those who came forward, and for those who haven't
32:37
Speaker 1: come forward, I'm glad that Maxwell has been held accountable. Now,
32:41
Speaker 1: that is pretty powerful stuff from Scotty David to say, right?
32:45
Speaker 1: And under normal circumstances, if the juror didn't, you know,
32:48
Speaker 1: BS his way to get on to the jury, that
32:51
Speaker 1: would be some pretty powerful testimony. But when you look
32:54
Speaker 1: at it from Maxwell's point of view, you could easily
32:57
Speaker 1: spin that into him saying that he has an axe
32:59
Speaker 1: to grind. That, you know, this is for all of
33:01
Speaker 1: the survivors, including me, who have, you know, been abused.
33:05
Speaker 1: So again, it's not a good look. And the optics
33:08
Speaker 1: are just really, really bad for Scotty David, unfortunately. The
33:14
Speaker 1: publication added that Scotty's fellow jurors went dead silent when
33:18
Speaker 1: he shared he was a victim of sexual abuse and
33:21
Speaker 1: argued that survivors can misremember small details about a traumatic event,
33:26
Speaker 1: but not the whole of a traumatic memory. I know
33:29
Speaker 1: what happened when I was sexually abused. I remember the
33:31
Speaker 1: color of the carpet, the walls. Some of it can
33:34
Speaker 1: be replayed like a video, Scotty told The Independent. But
33:38
Speaker 1: I can't remember all the details. There are some things
33:41
Speaker 1: that run together. And look, let's not be, uh, Let's
33:45
Speaker 1: not mess around here, right? Scotty getting abused himself is terrible.
33:49
Speaker 1: A horrible, horrible thing. But that doesn't give him the right,
33:55
Speaker 1: if he lied here, to lie and try and get
33:57
Speaker 1: on this jury to grind his own axe at the
34:01
Speaker 1: expense of these survivors. Scotty also granted interviews to the
34:06
Speaker 1: Daily Mail and Reuters, saying he did not recall whether
34:09
Speaker 1: the pretrial questionnaire asked prospective panelists whether they had been
34:14
Speaker 1: victims of sexual assault and that he flew through the
34:17
Speaker 1: list of queries. He said that when fellow jurors questioned
34:21
Speaker 1: the accuracy of the accuser's memories, he swayed some of
34:24
Speaker 1: them by talking about his own experience with sexual abuse. Now, again,
34:30
Speaker 1: I've talked about this a lot, obviously. I really don't
34:32
Speaker 1: think that he... What is he, Yoda? He's over there
34:36
Speaker 1: and he's swaying everybody with his power, his Jedi mind trick.
34:39
Speaker 1: So again, it might have been something that they took
34:42
Speaker 1: into account, but enough to sway them? I don't know
34:45
Speaker 1: about all of that. In court on Tuesday, Nathan warned
34:50
Speaker 1: the juror, you need to answer my questions today, and
34:52
Speaker 1: you need to answer truthfully. If you don't answer truthfully,
34:55
Speaker 1: you could be prosecuted for perjury. She also instructed Scotty
35:00
Speaker 1: not to share anything about what jurors discussed in the
35:03
Speaker 1: deliberation room. Yeah, that's not something that should be talked
35:06
Speaker 1: about in open court for sure. And even though you
35:09
Speaker 1: have immunity, that immunity is only protecting you from your
35:12
Speaker 1: previous crimes, right? So if you lie in front of
35:14
Speaker 1: the judge and perjure yourself again, it starts all over.
35:18
Speaker 1: And that's why when you see people rat on someone like, say,
35:22
Speaker 1: El Chapo, they have to tell everything they've ever done,
35:25
Speaker 1: whether it be murder somebody or anything, right then when
35:29
Speaker 1: they're signing that proffer. Or the deal doesn't protect them.
35:35
Speaker 1: As he swore to tell the truth, the juror reviewed
35:37
Speaker 1: question 48 on the jury questionnaire, which asked if he
35:41
Speaker 1: had been the victim of sexual harassment, abuse, or assault.
35:45
Speaker 1: Asked if his answer was accurate, he answered, no, it
35:48
Speaker 1: is not. The response should have been yes, he said. So, look,
35:52
Speaker 1: he could say that he was flying through the questionnaire,
35:55
Speaker 1: and Maxwell will say, obviously, that he lied. And, again,
36:00
Speaker 1: it is up to the judge to decide. The juror
36:07
Speaker 1: said that he was abused when he was 9 and
36:09
Speaker 1: 10 years old, but didn't disclose what happened until high school.
36:12
Speaker 1: He testified that his mother reported the alleged crime to police,
36:16
Speaker 1: but no one was charged. How often do we see that, right?
36:20
Speaker 1: People report this kind of thing to the police or
36:23
Speaker 1: to the authorities, and nothing ever comes of it. It's
36:26
Speaker 1: pretty sad. And once again, it goes back to the
36:28
Speaker 1: resource problem. We need to have better resources and better
36:32
Speaker 1: training for the police officers and agents that are working
36:36
Speaker 1: on cases such as this. Scotty also addressed question 25,
36:42
Speaker 1: which asked whether he had ever been the victim of
36:44
Speaker 1: a crime. He answered no. Looking back at it now,
36:48
Speaker 1: it's an incorrect answer, the juror said. He said that
36:51
Speaker 1: at the time, he imagined the question referred to being
36:53
Speaker 1: robbed or mugged. I wasn't thinking of my sexual abuse,
36:57
Speaker 1: he added. Well, again, I'm not in Scotty David's head, right?
37:00
Speaker 1: I'm not going to say one way or the other, oh,
37:02
Speaker 1: he was thinking this or he was thinking that. I
37:04
Speaker 1: have no idea. But you would think that if you
37:08
Speaker 1: were a victim of such a heinous crime, that would
37:10
Speaker 1: be one of the first things that you thought about
37:13
Speaker 1: when someone asked you if you were a victim of
37:15
Speaker 1: a crime, right? The juror later said, I don't really
37:22
Speaker 1: think about my abuse much anymore because it doesn't define me.
37:26
Speaker 1: The juror then repeated something he told news reporters weeks ago.
37:30
Speaker 1: I flew through the questionnaire. Indeed, Scottie said he had
37:34
Speaker 1: never thought he'd be selected for the 12-member jury out
37:37
Speaker 1: of nearly 700 prospective panelists. Well, that's no excuse. If you're,
37:42
Speaker 1: you know, thinking you're going to be selected or not,
37:44
Speaker 1: you should go into it thinking that this might be
37:47
Speaker 1: a responsibility that you have to tackle. When he filled
37:52
Speaker 1: out the questionnaire, he said he was seated at a
37:54
Speaker 1: table where people dropped off their forms. He said the
37:57
Speaker 1: environment was noisy and super distracting, and he skimmed the
38:01
Speaker 1: document to get it over with, having waited three hours
38:05
Speaker 1: for an instructional video. A breakup with an ex was
38:08
Speaker 1: also occupying his mind and focus, he said. Alright, I
38:12
Speaker 1: guess so, but again, some papers rustling, and you had
38:16
Speaker 1: a breakup, so you flying through the questionnaire? Not really
38:20
Speaker 1: reassuring if you're talking about, you know, giving some concrete
38:24
Speaker 1: information on why you're a solid person. I did not
38:29
Speaker 1: hope to serve on this jury, he testified. But if
38:31
Speaker 1: you're going to serve jury duty, it might as well
38:34
Speaker 1: be something that's interesting. But I did not set out
38:37
Speaker 1: to get on this jury. All right. He says he
38:39
Speaker 1: didn't set out to get on this jury. And let's
38:42
Speaker 1: take him at his word, right? Let's see what the
38:45
Speaker 1: judge has to say. The juror clarified later on in
38:49
Speaker 1: the questioning, this is something interesting. It's not like a
38:52
Speaker 1: fraud case that might be boring. I just felt like
38:54
Speaker 1: this might be something interesting that keeps my attention. Oh boy.
38:59
Speaker 1: He's not really doing himself any favors here, folks. I'm
39:01
Speaker 1: trying to be generous with my commentary, but it's very
39:04
Speaker 1: difficult because he's coming off as not very good here.
39:10
Speaker 1: He said he felt pressure to complete the jury questionnaire
39:13
Speaker 1: quickly and compared it to taking a test in school.
39:17
Speaker 1: He said he didn't want to be the last one
39:19
Speaker 1: to finish. Um, what? Taking a test in school? When
39:24
Speaker 1: Nathan asked whether the juror approached filling out the form
39:28
Speaker 1: with diligence, he answered no. Boy, oh boy. Nathan also
39:33
Speaker 1: leveled follow-up questions after Scotty said he didn't tell friends
39:36
Speaker 1: and family about his past abuse, asking why he told
39:40
Speaker 1: the international news media. That's a good question, right? A
39:43
Speaker 1: very honest question to ask and a valid question. I
39:48
Speaker 1: only used it in order to talk to a reporter
39:50
Speaker 1: about jury deliberations, why I believe a certain way based
39:53
Speaker 1: on all of the evidence that was provided during the trial,
39:56
Speaker 1: he said. He also said that he was inspired by
39:59
Speaker 1: the victims who testified at the trial and were brave
40:02
Speaker 1: enough to give their story. I felt like if they
40:05
Speaker 1: can do it, then so can I. Look, you can
40:08
Speaker 1: look at that two ways, as it being an inspirational
40:11
Speaker 1: moment for Scotty David or him trying to insert himself
40:15
Speaker 1: once again, making the story about him. Now, it's up
40:18
Speaker 1: to you to decide which way you want to look
40:20
Speaker 1: at it, right? But for me, it's just, again, the
40:24
Speaker 1: optics are so bad for this dude. On January 5th,
40:30
Speaker 1: the prosecution and defense each filed letters with the court
40:33
Speaker 1: about Scotty's talks with reporters, which raised questions as to
40:37
Speaker 1: whether he was impartial at trial. Whether the court instructed
40:41
Speaker 1: jurors that they were free to discuss their jury service
40:44
Speaker 1: with anyone of their choosing, some of the statements, as
40:47
Speaker 1: related in the media, merit attention by the court, wrote
40:50
Speaker 1: the government, which suggested the judge investigate. So right away
40:55
Speaker 1: when he made these statements, it was on, right? We
40:57
Speaker 1: were discussing it right away. All of the talk was
41:00
Speaker 1: about Scotty David and his alleged non-truthfulness, untruthfulness, I guess,
41:07
Speaker 1: with the questionnaire. And here we are. On January 19th,
41:16
Speaker 1: Maxwell's team filed a motion for a new trial, which
41:19
Speaker 1: argued that Scottie's false answers on the questionnaire resulted in
41:23
Speaker 1: a jury that was not fair and impartial and deprived Ms.
41:27
Speaker 1: Maxwell of her constitutional right by jury. Had he truthfully
41:31
Speaker 1: filled out the form, they argued, he would have been
41:33
Speaker 1: excluded from the panel. Again, more than likely that is
41:37
Speaker 1: the case, right? But we can't look into the future
41:39
Speaker 1: or the past here and see what would have happened
41:42
Speaker 1: or what could have happened. All that we know is
41:44
Speaker 1: what did happen. But Juror 50 may not have been
41:49
Speaker 1: alone in allegedly glossing over certain questions. The New York
41:52
Speaker 1: Times interviewed a second juror who said that they'd experienced
41:56
Speaker 1: child sexual abuse, but didn't say so on the questionnaire.
41:59
Speaker 1: This juror, who requested anonymity, said that they too had
42:03
Speaker 1: discussed the experience during deliberations, and that the revelation had
42:07
Speaker 1: appeared to help shape the jury's discussions. The Times reported, again,
42:11
Speaker 1: not good optics. And I'm sure Judge Nathan is going
42:15
Speaker 1: to take all of this stuff into account. To date,
42:21
Speaker 1: this juror has not publicly revealed their identity, and Ms.
42:24
Speaker 1: Maxwell does not know who it is. Her attorneys wrote
42:28
Speaker 1: in their motion, for its part, this court expressed confidence
42:32
Speaker 1: that the question process would smoke out a juror who
42:35
Speaker 1: was dishonest, they added. Ms. Maxwell relied on the court's process,
42:39
Speaker 1: and the court and the parties relied on the presumption
42:42
Speaker 1: to which everyone is entitled, that potential jurors would carefully honest,
42:47
Speaker 1: would carefully and honestly engage in the questioning process. Unfortunately,
42:52
Speaker 1: we now know that juror number 50 and at least
42:55
Speaker 1: one other juror did not honor their obligations to give
42:58
Speaker 1: only truthful answers. All right, well, we don't know that
43:01
Speaker 1: for sure. What we know is that there is some
43:04
Speaker 1: questions surrounding it, right? And especially with Scotty David, it
43:09
Speaker 1: doesn't look good for him. Getting immunity, pleading the fifth,
43:13
Speaker 1: I'm flying through it, I had a breakup. None of
43:16
Speaker 1: that stuff looks good. While Nathan denied Maxwell's initial request
43:20
Speaker 1: for a retrial and to question the other jurors, she
43:24
Speaker 1: did agree to question Scotty at a special hearing. To
43:27
Speaker 1: be clear, the potential impropriety is not that someone with
43:30
Speaker 1: a history of sexual abuse may have served on the jury,
43:33
Speaker 1: Nathan wrote in her ruling. Rather, it is the potential
43:36
Speaker 1: failure to respond truthfully to questions during the jury selection
43:41
Speaker 1: process that asked for that material information so that any
43:45
Speaker 1: potential bias could be explored. So basically, like we've talked about,
43:50
Speaker 1: what that says is, look, you can't lie to get
43:54
Speaker 1: on the jury, but if you've been sexually abused or
43:57
Speaker 1: assaulted or whatever, that doesn't automatically preclude you from serving.
44:02
Speaker 1: Now it's up to, you know, Nathan and the courts
44:05
Speaker 1: to figure out this whole entire mess. One thing's for sure, folks.
44:09
Speaker 1: We'll be here following along every twist, every turn, every upsy,
44:14
Speaker 1: every downsy. We'll be here to check it out, look
44:20
Speaker 1: at it, analyze it, and talk about it. All right, folks,
44:24
Speaker 1: that's going to do it for tonight. Some context episodes
44:27
Speaker 1: on the way. Right back at it tomorrow morning, folks.
44:30
Speaker 1: If you'd like to contact me, you can do that
44:32
Speaker 1: at bobbycapucci at protonmail.com. That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I at protonmail.com. You can
44:41
Speaker 1: also find me on Twitter at B-O-B-B-Y underscore C-A-P-U-C-C-I. The
44:47
Speaker 1: link that goes with this episode can be found in
44:50
Speaker 1: the description box. All right, folks. Tomorrow morning, I'll be back,
44:54
Speaker 1: and I will talk to all of you then. What's up, everyone,
44:58
Speaker 1: and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. Judge Nathan has
45:03
Speaker 1: finally come to a decision when it comes to juror
45:06
Speaker 1: number 50 and Ghislaine Maxwell possibly getting a new trial.
45:12
Speaker 1: Judge Nathan's decision. is that Ghislaine Maxwell will not be
45:16
Speaker 1: getting a new trial. That's right, folks. Judge Nathan has
45:20
Speaker 1: ruled that the situation does not call for a new trial.
45:25
Speaker 1: It does not call for the verdict being tossed out.
45:28
Speaker 1: And Ghislaine Maxwell, well, her only hope now will be
45:32
Speaker 1: to appeal this. So, thankfully, it's not an easy road
45:36
Speaker 1: for her. And a new trial, well, that wouldn't be
45:40
Speaker 1: easy anyway, but at least she wouldn't be fighting a
45:43
Speaker 1: conviction that's already on the books. Now, her task is very, very,
45:49
Speaker 1: very difficult. Whereas she had a glimmer of hope before, now,
45:54
Speaker 1: the door to her cell might as well be slammed shut, folks.
45:57
Speaker 1: That's where we're at as far as the situation now, because...
46:02
Speaker 1: She's going to appeal this. Of course she is. And
46:05
Speaker 1: the appeals court, who has denied her requests at every turn,
46:09
Speaker 1: is going to take a look at what happened here. And, well,
46:11
Speaker 1: Judge Nathan is about to be on that appeals court,
46:14
Speaker 1: by the way. You really think that she has such
46:17
Speaker 1: a differing opinion than the rest of those judges? I
46:20
Speaker 1: highly doubt it. Not more than the majority. Not on
46:23
Speaker 1: the Second Circuit Court. So Ghislaine Maxwell is basically cooked
46:27
Speaker 1: at this point. And it would take a miracle, in
46:31
Speaker 1: my opinion, for her to even have any kind of
46:33
Speaker 1: breathing room. Whereas before, she had a little pocket of air,
46:38
Speaker 1: you know, trapped between the ice and herself. Now, there's nothing.
46:42
Speaker 1: And there's nothing for her to, you know, rest her
46:46
Speaker 1: hat on or hope for. Because I think an appeal is,
46:50
Speaker 1: we're talking beyond a Hail Mary, folks. So let's get
46:53
Speaker 1: into this article from CNN.com. And let's see what Eric Levinson...
46:58
Speaker 1: The author has to say headline federal judge denies Ghislaine
47:03
Speaker 1: Maxwell's bid for new trial over jury issue. A federal
47:10
Speaker 1: judge upheld a Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction on sex trafficking charges Friday,
47:16
Speaker 1: ruling that a juror's misstatements on a pretrial questionnaire should
47:20
Speaker 1: not cause a mistrial. So look. It was in Judge
47:24
Speaker 1: Nathan's opinion that what Scotty David did didn't warrant this
47:28
Speaker 1: going back to the very beginning. And in her opinion,
47:32
Speaker 1: he was just loose with the truth, if you will.
47:36
Speaker 1: I guess that's the way she read it. Judge Allison
47:40
Speaker 1: Nathan issued the ruling nearly a month after the juror
47:43
Speaker 1: testified in court. He made an inadvertent mistake when he
47:47
Speaker 1: indicated in the questionnaire that he was not a victim
47:50
Speaker 1: of sexual abuse. Under oath, he said he had been
47:53
Speaker 1: sexually abused as a child. He said he, excuse me,
47:57
Speaker 1: under oath, he said he had been sexually abused as
47:59
Speaker 1: a child, yet he maintained that his past did not
48:03
Speaker 1: shape his views or influence his approach as a juror
48:07
Speaker 1: in the trial. Now, remember, I said that I would
48:10
Speaker 1: think that they'd have more information than us. And I
48:13
Speaker 1: would think that the court, Judge Nathan and the other
48:17
Speaker 1: people involved would have spoken with the other jurors. Right.
48:21
Speaker 1: And it was the contention of Ghislaine Maxwell and her
48:25
Speaker 1: team that Scotty David's conversation in the jurors room swayed
48:31
Speaker 1: the whole entire opinion of the jurors who might not
48:34
Speaker 1: have been so quick to come to a guilty verdict. Well,
48:40
Speaker 1: I always said I doubt that what he had to
48:42
Speaker 1: say was the nail in the coffin. Sure, it might
48:45
Speaker 1: have given them a little bit of context or something
48:48
Speaker 1: like that, but my guess is these jurors were going
48:52
Speaker 1: to find her guilty no matter what. It's just one
48:55
Speaker 1: of those issues where you want to be sure, right?
48:57
Speaker 1: You don't want to condemn somebody to life for crimes
49:00
Speaker 1: like this unless there is a high bar of evidence.
49:04
Speaker 1: And I think that We most certainly reach that point,
49:07
Speaker 1: that bar in this case. When you look at just
49:09
Speaker 1: what we know, right? Just the circumstantial evidence available to us,
49:15
Speaker 1: I've said this a million times, is enough to convict
49:17
Speaker 1: these people. In a 40-page opinion, Judge Allison Nathan found
49:23
Speaker 1: the jurors' lack of attention and care in responding accurately
49:26
Speaker 1: to every question on the questionnaire is regrettable, but the
49:30
Speaker 1: court is confident that the failure to disclose was not deliberate.
49:35
Speaker 1: The judge noted the bar for setting aside a guilty
49:37
Speaker 1: verdict is high and occurs only in the most extraordinary
49:42
Speaker 1: of circumstances. So look, it didn't meet the level that
49:47
Speaker 1: it would take to get something overturned here. And a
49:50
Speaker 1: lot of the legal analysts and experts had said that
49:54
Speaker 1: this would be the case, right? Me, as somebody who
49:57
Speaker 1: didn't know one way or the other... I was going
50:00
Speaker 1: with whatever way Judge Nathan decided, that's what it would be.
50:04
Speaker 1: Because at the end of the day, when it comes
50:07
Speaker 1: down to this sort of stuff, and you're talking about
50:10
Speaker 1: the nuance of the legal system and how it works
50:13
Speaker 1: at this level, I have no idea. I don't think
50:16
Speaker 1: most of us do, honestly. And is it uniformed anyway?
50:20
Speaker 1: We all know the system is broken, and there's a
50:24
Speaker 1: unique screwing of each person just about in every single
50:27
Speaker 1: government case. When it comes to a decision as far
50:32
Speaker 1: as a juror who was being deliberately untruthful or being
50:40
Speaker 1: just careless. Again, it was always going to be up
50:43
Speaker 1: to Judge Nathan to determine what the bar would be, right?
50:48
Speaker 1: What the threshold is. The ruling comes months after Maxwell,
50:54
Speaker 1: the former girlfriend and close associate. Can we just drop
50:57
Speaker 1: the former girlfriend stuff, please? We already know that that's
51:01
Speaker 1: not the case. We know that Robert Maxwell and Jeffrey
51:04
Speaker 1: Epstein were in cahoots way before then. And we know
51:07
Speaker 1: that Robert Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein were business partners. It's
51:11
Speaker 1: ridiculous to act like they were still boyfriend and girlfriend,
51:14
Speaker 1: considering especially what we've heard from the survivors. Just go
51:17
Speaker 1: back and listen to what Juliet Bryant was just talking about.
51:24
Speaker 1: The ruling comes months after Maxwell, the former girlfriend, co-conspirator,
51:28
Speaker 1: general all around scuzzbag, and close associate of the late
51:31
Speaker 1: financier Jeffrey Epstein, was found guilty of sex trafficking, a minor,
51:36
Speaker 1: and four other counts of facilitating Epstein's sexual abuse of
51:41
Speaker 1: minor girls between 1994 and 2004. And now also remember
51:46
Speaker 1: she still has the perjury charges she has to answer
51:48
Speaker 1: for now. She was going to get a kind of
51:52
Speaker 1: a get out of jail free card with the perjury
51:55
Speaker 1: if she didn't pursue this nonsense. But since she did,
51:58
Speaker 1: my guess is they're going to press her on that.
52:00
Speaker 1: So she's looking at 10 more years tacked on to
52:03
Speaker 1: whatever sentence she gets in this the human trafficking case.
52:08
Speaker 1: So her problems are just beginning, folks. And guess what?
52:11
Speaker 1: I'm enjoying every single minute of it. It is very
52:15
Speaker 1: rare that I will ever take joy in somebody's downfall.
52:19
Speaker 1: Because guess what? It could easily be any of us
52:21
Speaker 1: or someone we know. But not for something like this, right?
52:24
Speaker 1: This isn't, oh, I made a mistake. I made a
52:27
Speaker 1: financial error. This is a whole different ballgame. This is,
52:31
Speaker 1: you know, the most heinous of the most heinous. And
52:33
Speaker 1: I have no empathy for it. The jury issue became
52:41
Speaker 1: public after the conviction, when the juror gave multiple interviews
52:44
Speaker 1: to media outlets, saying he had been sexually assaulted as
52:48
Speaker 1: a child. He said several jurors had issues with the
52:51
Speaker 1: survivor's faulty memories, so he shared his personal experience with
52:55
Speaker 1: abuse and memory during deliberations. And again, I'm not discounting that,
53:00
Speaker 1: I'm sure he did, and I'm sure that the other
53:02
Speaker 1: jurors listened up. But there was a mountain of evidence
53:06
Speaker 1: that was provided to these jurors. They sat through it.
53:09
Speaker 1: They heard more than we did, right? Most of us
53:11
Speaker 1: weren't in that courtroom. They heard all of it. They
53:15
Speaker 1: saw all of it. They heard that heartbreaking testimony by
53:19
Speaker 1: those survivors. Then they saw Annie Farmer come in and
53:23
Speaker 1: slam the door shut. So while what Scotty had to
53:28
Speaker 1: say might have, you know, given them a little more context,
53:31
Speaker 1: like I said a second ago, it is not the
53:34
Speaker 1: issue that pushed things over the edge, at least not
53:36
Speaker 1: in my opinion. When I shared that, they were able
53:40
Speaker 1: to sort of come around. They were able to come
53:42
Speaker 1: around on the memory aspect of the sexual abuse, the
53:46
Speaker 1: jurors said in a Reuters interview. And it's no doubt
53:49
Speaker 1: that a lot of people don't understand how this works.
53:52
Speaker 1: I had no idea. Until I started researching this sick,
53:57
Speaker 1: demented bastard Epstein and his buddies, I had no idea
54:00
Speaker 1: how any of this stuff worked or what trauma bonding
54:02
Speaker 1: was or how, you know, the memories are repressed. It's
54:08
Speaker 1: not something that was, you know, in my on my desk,
54:12
Speaker 1: if you will. But once you open that door and
54:16
Speaker 1: you take a look, it's so obvious how these people
54:19
Speaker 1: operate and how these organizations and these trafficking rings get
54:23
Speaker 1: put into effect that it's hard to not pay attention. However,
54:30
Speaker 1: potential jurors were explicitly asked on jury questionnaire forms if
54:35
Speaker 1: they had been sexually abused and, if so, if it
54:38
Speaker 1: would impact their abilities to be impartial while deliberating. A
54:42
Speaker 1: copy of Juror 50's jury questionnaire showed he stated on
54:46
Speaker 1: the form that he had not been sexually abused. So again, look.
54:51
Speaker 1: When we're talking about a situation such as this, as
54:55
Speaker 1: an outsider looking in, I would think this would be
54:58
Speaker 1: a situation where it would automatically deem a new trial, right?
55:05
Speaker 1: Because if the juror was not truthful, then it throws
55:09
Speaker 1: everything into discord. So I'm sure Maxwell is going to
55:13
Speaker 1: try and appeal on that basis, but... Again, once you
55:16
Speaker 1: have the verdict in, it is so hard to get
55:18
Speaker 1: something thrown out, and that's why it's important to make
55:22
Speaker 1: sure that you get the right jurors on that jury.
55:25
Speaker 1: If you're a lawyer, that's one of the biggest parts
55:27
Speaker 1: of your job, getting the right jury that's going to
55:29
Speaker 1: be sympathetic to your client. Maxwell's lawyers argued she should
55:35
Speaker 1: be granted a new trial because of the jurors' answers.
55:39
Speaker 1: Last month, Judge Nathan questioned the juror who said he
55:42
Speaker 1: was distracted and unfocused when filling out the questionnaire and
55:46
Speaker 1: made inadvertent mistakes. He denied tailoring his answers to win
55:50
Speaker 1: a spot on the jury. Now, that would be the
55:52
Speaker 1: worst thing you could possibly do, right? And if he
55:55
Speaker 1: did that, then he's gross. Another one of these people
55:58
Speaker 1: that want to insert themselves in the case. But according
56:01
Speaker 1: to Judge Nathan, that wasn't what happened and these were
56:04
Speaker 1: just errors. He denied tailoring his answers to win a
56:07
Speaker 1: spot on the jury. The judge said she found the
56:10
Speaker 1: juror to be responsive and forthright and that he reaffirmed
56:14
Speaker 1: his personal history would not affect his ability to serve
56:18
Speaker 1: as an impartial and fair juror in any way. And
56:23
Speaker 1: it comes down to that, right? Do you take him
56:24
Speaker 1: at his word or not? Do you think he's a
56:26
Speaker 1: liar or isn't he? Did he make a mistake or
56:29
Speaker 1: didn't he? And that was up to Judge Nathan. It
56:31
Speaker 1: was always going to be up to Judge Nathan. Like
56:34
Speaker 1: I said, that was always going to be what it
56:35
Speaker 1: hinged on, right? Did he or didn't he lie? All
56:37
Speaker 1: the rest of it was noise. On Friday, Maxwell's attorney
56:43
Speaker 1: asked the judge not to rule on the motion for
56:45
Speaker 1: a new trial until they see a new interview Juror
56:49
Speaker 1: 50 gave as a part of a multi-part streaming series
56:52
Speaker 1: on Maxwell. Prosecutors said the government strongly opposed any delay
56:56
Speaker 1: of the ruling. During Maxwell's trial, prosecutors argued she and
57:00
Speaker 1: Epstein conspired to set up a scheme to lure young
57:03
Speaker 1: girls into sexual relationships with Epstein in New York, Florida,
57:07
Speaker 1: New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. So why would, look,
57:12
Speaker 1: I don't want no delay here either. To hell with
57:15
Speaker 1: your delay. Time to get this lady ready to go, sentenced,
57:20
Speaker 1: and down and sent to the clink. She thinks she
57:23
Speaker 1: has it bad now. Wait till she's, you know, digging
57:26
Speaker 1: into the commissary and eating the top ramen and making
57:29
Speaker 1: grilled cheese on the radiator. It's gonna be a real
57:32
Speaker 1: fun time for Ghislaine Maxwell. Talk about the downfall being complete.
57:42
Speaker 1: The trial, which took about a month late last year,
57:44
Speaker 1: alternated between disturbing testimony from sexual abuse survivors and illuminating
57:49
Speaker 1: testimony about some of Epstein's connections to high-profile celebrities. The
57:55
Speaker 1: jury of six women and six men deliberated for about
57:57
Speaker 1: 40 hours across parts of six days before the verdict.
58:02
Speaker 1: They found her guilty of sex trafficking of a minor,
58:05
Speaker 1: transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal
58:08
Speaker 1: sexual activity, and three related counts of conspiracy, but acquitted
58:12
Speaker 1: her of a charge of enticing a minor to travel
58:15
Speaker 1: to engage in illegal sex acts. You know, that was
58:17
Speaker 1: like the one gimme, right? You got like a really
58:20
Speaker 1: good team that beats the hell out of your baseball
58:22
Speaker 1: team all the time, and you get that gimme game.
58:25
Speaker 1: Every now and then they'll throw one, they'll put their
58:27
Speaker 1: bad pitcher out or whatever, and he'll have a bad game.
58:30
Speaker 1: That's what that charge was, really, the gimme charge. But
58:33
Speaker 1: what it does, really, all kidding aside, is it shows
58:35
Speaker 1: that the jury was not really swayed by Scottie David.
58:40
Speaker 1: They acquitted her on one charge, so it wasn't a
58:43
Speaker 1: slam dunk on all of the charges. She is scheduled
58:48
Speaker 1: to be sentenced in June and faces up to 65
58:50
Speaker 1: years in prison. Epstein, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to
58:54
Speaker 1: state prostitution charges, was indicted on federal sex trafficking charges
58:59
Speaker 1: in July 2019, but died by suicide, allegedly, in prison
59:04
Speaker 1: a month later. Maxwell was arrested a year afterward. Well,
59:09
Speaker 1: that is the... end of the saga of juror gate, folks.
59:13
Speaker 1: Juror number 50. And this whole, will Maxwell get a
59:17
Speaker 1: new trial situation? Now, obviously, we still have the appeal.
59:21
Speaker 1: We'll see where that goes. But I really don't think
59:23
Speaker 1: that's going anywhere. And I don't care how many high
59:26
Speaker 1: profile lawyers she brings in and trots out in front
59:29
Speaker 1: of us. I really don't think it's going to end
59:31
Speaker 1: up well for her. This was her last hurrah. And
59:34
Speaker 1: if she couldn't get this to go through, if she
59:36
Speaker 1: couldn't get this to be the jam, then there's no chance.
59:40
Speaker 1: And Ghislaine Maxwell, my friends, is going to do a
59:43
Speaker 1: very long, long prison sentence. And guess what? I hope
59:48
Speaker 1: she enjoys every single minute of it. If you'd like
59:55
Speaker 1: to contact me, you can do that at bobbycapucci at protonmail.com.
59:59
Speaker 1: That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I at protonmail.com. You can also find me on
1:00:06
Speaker 1: Twitter at B-O-B-B-Y underscore C-A-P-U-C-C-I. The link that we discussed
1:00:13
Speaker 1: can be found in the description box. All right, everybody.