I am interested in the Judges decision on whether the legal case should be thrown out because of the release agreement.
I think the problem with that is that this is a civil case... if she had filed criminal charges then I'm pretty sure this agreement wouldn't hold up?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58153711
She didn’t file criminal charges because Epstein paid her off when she was young and naive. The statute of limitations has run out on Andy for criminal charges hence the civil case.
To be accurate...
I think we all know also, that nothing will come from this. The crown won't let Prince Andrew go on trial, if it is forced there is no way he will be convicted.
Yeah I think whatever happens there will be a settlement (to prevent her going on talk shows etc)... but with the threat of a trial and specifically a videoed deposition of Prince Andrew under oath (sweating as he testifies he cant sweat) would certainly make Andrews side look to settle quicker and probably at a far higher amount.
"I was actually on the Jury for the Scranton Strangler case"
perhaps he did... and perhaps the other person he mentioned did... I'm sure the defence is busy checking the paperwork right now ... 2/12 =16.66% of the jury (at least) suffered sexual abuse and used this experience to persuade other jury members (according to his statement) - which if not declared I suspect would give grounds for an appeal?
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...mony-showed-pattern-of-grooming-41210760.html
Very strange.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The entire thing sounds so contrived
They have good grounds.
It's Hollywood, they love a good story and this hasn't run it's course yet.
Honestly, I hate to be a conspiracy theorist but that’s my thinking too. It even provides a super easy way to pay off the juror without a paper trail with the Daily Mail paying a premium for the interview.
Considering most people think Epstien was murdered in prison, this is pretty basic step to take in comparison, before they have to resort to extremes.
Exactly this
Very much this.
Perfect excuse to get the case thrown out of court, trial deemed a mis trial and Maxwell to have justified grounds to appeal her sentence?
It is yes. It is covered by both the common law and the Contempt of Court Act 1981. It prevents jurors speaking of anything that went on in the juror room, without a time limit. Equally it is an offence to ask a juror anything about a trial.
We stole them off Charlemagne and claimed them as English.
Ah I see.
This is what I thought. If you wanted to discredit the investigation and derail, it couldn't have gone any better.
40% of women have suffered abuse? I googled it but couldn't find a source.
Yeah, surprised me as well. Maybe suffered was the wrong word but "encountered".
Although I'm now struggling to find the source for the evidence, and it says halfway down that the number for women is 1 in 6. So now I'm confused.
Not to discredit it (hopefully there's a source somewhere) but I've become a bit wary of brazen claims after learning the Super Bowl stat has been debunked: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/domestic-violence-super-bowl-sunday/
Yeah, I was a bit jumpy to start off with. Finding proper statistics on the subject seems impossible, but IF the numbers turn out to be similar to the number of jurors who have experienced sexual abuse then surely that means the jury were representative of society as a whole?
