← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: Ghislaine Maxwell And Juror # 50 (3/27/26)
00:52:56
In Ghislaine Maxwell's 2021 sex trafficking trial, Juror #50, identified as Scotty David, became a focal point of controversy post-verdict. After Maxwell's conviction, David publicly disclosed his own history as a survivor of childhood sexual abuse,...
Loading summary
Transcript12 lines
- [00:00]
Bobby Capucci
Tyler redick here from 2311 racing another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with Chumba. Jump in@chumbacasino.com let's Chumba. No purchase necessary BTW group void where prohibited by law. CTNCs21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino. This is Mike Bolo of Lexicon Valley and I'm Bob Garfield. Are you one of those people who sometimes uses words? Do you communicate or acquire information with you? You know, language? Hey, us too. So join us on Lexicon Valley to chew over the history, culture and many mysteries of English, plus some lice cracks. Find us on one of those apps where people listen to podcasts. What's up everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. Tonight we're going to continue talking about the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict and specifically about the interview given by one of the jurors. And now all of the fallout surrounding that interview. Now, this all stems from his account of how he gave his personal story inside of the jurors room to the other jurors as they were deliberating Ghislaine Maxwell's fate. Trying to draw a picture for some of the other jurors, I guess, about how memories of the real core issues when it comes to trauma never change. And he tried to paint a picture of that for the other jurors using his own past experiences. And now the question is, was he forthcoming during juror selection when asked questions about sexual abuse? That's really the main question here, right? There's a lot of other things going on and, you know, a lot of other background noise. But the main question is, was this gentleman truthful when he was being selected to be put upon this jury? So now the federal government, well, they've decided that they're gonna do an inquiry into this. They have petitioned the court, and I'm gonna read to you the letter that the United States Attorney of the Southern District of New York sent to Judge Nathan. Dear Judge Nathan, the government has become aware that a juror has given several interviews to press outlets regarding his jury service in this case. While the court instructed jurors that they were free to discuss their jury service with anyone of their choosing, some of the statements as related in the media, merit attention by the court. In particular, the juror has described being a victim of sexual abuse. Assuming the accuracy of the reporting, the juror asserted that he flew through the prospective juror questionnaire and does not recall being asked whether he had been a victim of sexual abuse, but stated that he would have answered honestly. So Right off the jump, I mean, you got to say to yourself here, what the hell? Now a lot of this testimony was given under seal, right? The juror testimony, the, I mean, the questioning to get onto the panel. So we really don't know what's going on and what's under seal, but the government does. So the government calling an inquiry here is a bit concerning in my opinion. And look, I've said it from the beginning, folks, I have no faith when it comes to the federal government prosecuting cases like this. When it comes to them prosecuting me or you, hell yeah, they're gonna send us up the river without a paddle, as the saying goes. But people like this, forget it. So we'll have to see what, what comes of it. But man, oh man. Based on the foregoing, the government believes the court should conduct an inquiry. The government proposes that the court schedule a hearing in approximately one month along with an appropriate schedule for pre hearing briefing regarding the applicable law and the scope of the hearing. The government respectfully submits that any juror investigation should be conducted exclusively under the supervision of the court. If the court decides to schedule a hearing, the government respectfully suggests that the court staff promptly contact the juror to notify him of the hearing and inquire whether he would like counsel to be appointed in connection with it. Yo, and this is why I say all the time, there's no need to run out and speak to the media and get yourself in all kinds of trouble. You ever find yourself in a situation like this, best bet, don't speak to the media. The legacy media, they are not your friends. They don't have your best interest at heart. You know, they're not your, your local independent content creator that you talk to on the Internet all the time. These people are looking to break that story. They want them clicks, whatever drives the news. And now, as you know, I don't really blame them, right? That's their job and that's the culture that we're in. But the reality of it is, if you're ever somebody who, you know is in a situation like this, I would suggest not to speak to the media at all because find yourself in a very difficult situation sometimes. The government reached out to defense counsel last night regarding the juror's statements, but defense counsel have not yet responded and thus the government is not aware of the defense position of, of on this issue. So that was the letter sent by Damian Williams, who is the u. S. Attorney for the southern, the southern district of New York. That means he's Maureen Comey, Allison Moe, Laura Pomerantz, Andrew Rohrbach, all of their boss. So it's a pretty serious situation, obviously. Right. And the government here, again, remember, they're the ones who know what's under seal. We don't. So them calling for this investigation certainly is a bit concerning. If you're asking me from the peanut gallery, again, remember, I am not a lawyer or a prosecutor. I've never even been in a court of law for something like this. So I. I couldn't, you know, tell you the likelihood of mistrial or anything like that. But the good news is the article that we're going to use today and talk about today from a Law and crime and Adam Clasfeld, they're gonna get into that a little bit more. So whenever we have one of these sorts of issues, as far as real legalese going on, I always like to use law and crime and somebody like Adam Klassfeld because, you know, it's kind of what they do for a living. Always a good idea to, you know, if you want to get ice cream, to go to the ice cream shop. Right. All right. So that said, let's take a look at this article and let's see what we have going on here. Headline Court in Inquiry requested after Ghislaine Maxwell juror goes public as survivor of Sexual Abuse. Like I said, this is from Law and Crime, and the author is Adam Classfeld. The day after three interviews ran with a Ghislaine Maxwell juror coming out as a survivor of sexual abuse, federal prosecutors requested a court inquiry into how those accounts square with the man's answers to a jury questionnaire before trial. So if, for instance, okay, let's just speculate here. And that's all I'm doing. If he answered that he had never been sexually assaulted on that questionnaire, this is going to spell big trouble for the prosecution. And this will probably end up in a place of a mistrial at that point. So really, like we said this this morning, it comes down to what he said during that questionnaire and was he truthful? Was he honest? Was he not? That's really what the real question is here. And for me, you would think that some of that has to fall on the defense, though, right? Isn't it their job to vet these jurors and make sure that there's nobody that might be, I don't know, somebody that harbors ill will towards their client? Isn't that what the whole process is about? Even though they answer the questionnaire, each juror has to be asked questions as well by the prosecution and the defense as they're going through the selection process. So you would think something like this would have come up. And so that, that, that makes me believe for at least a little anyway, that there might be, you know, much ado about nothing going on here. And again, speculation. It, whatever he answered on that questionnaire is going to tell the tale here, folks. And you know, them calling for this inquiry, that's what they're going to be trying to get down to the bottom of. Did he lie? Right. Did he answer? No, I have never been a victim of sexual abuse and then come out in the jury room and have a whole different thing to say. And if that's the case, as much of a monster as I think Ghislaine Maxwell is, that certainly would seem to me to be grounds for a mistrial. There has to be a certain standard that's followed, right? And you can't, as a juror, you can't be lying and, and, and shit like that and sitting in a juror's box and deciding the fate of one of your peers. So we're gonna have to see what this inquiry comes up with. And I will say that it certainly is concerning, but I'm not gonna jump off of the deep end just yet until we have all of the facts right. Shortly after the government's request, Maxwell's attorney, Christian Everdell claimed that the revelation regarding the juror presents incontrovertible grounds for a new trial. Oh, you know, he'd love that, right, Glenn Maxwell's lawyers. Not only the fact that obviously that people don't like to lose, lawyers included, but they know the meter is running a whole new trial. Back up the Brinks truck. We're gonna need new experts. We're gonna need Elizabeth Loftus 2.0. You know how it goes. They're gonna do everything they possibly can to get a new. Get this called a mistrial and have things, you know, crack off once again. And if you leave any leeway for these people, any sort of loophole or technicality, you better believe these lawyers are gonna grab onto it like a pit bull and not let go. And it's up to the prosecution to make sure that that doesn't happen. By the way, again, like I've said from Jump street, folks, the SDNY is not what it used to be. In a separate letter, is co counsel Jeffrey Pagluccia argued that further investigation was unwarranted and the court can and should order a new trial without, without any evidentiary hearing. Oh, that's a pretty bold statement there, Mr. Jeffrey P. Another one. He's like, yo, the meter is running. We had a great year last year. At the end of the year, as far as our financials go, considering how long this trial was drawn out, let's get another trial locked in so I can secure another bag here. All right, all right. I'm being a wise guy with that, but, you know, these lawyers are making a ton of money, and again, they don't like to lose. So if any sort of technicality or loophole presents itself, they're going to dive in. And to be frank, if it was me whose life was on the line, I would be demanding a mistrial here, too, probably. Now, is it going to work? I don't know. But I would be demanding it as well, I'll tell you that much. Because we know the evidence isn't there to get you out. If you're Ghislaine Maxwell, it's going to be a loophole or a technicality if you ever walk as a free woman again. So you better hope that it's something like this, because short of that, the party is over for her. The Supreme Court has held that to be entitled to a new trial, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question, and then further show that a correct response would have provided valid basis for a challenge for cause. Pagluccia's letter states the standard applies even if the juror's conduct was merely inadvertent and not intentional. And again, down to the legalese part of it. Right. I don't know how that. What the precedent says of that. I haven't dug into case study or anything like that, but you would think that they have a valid argument here, and it pains me to say that, but again, like I always say, you gotta follow the evidence, right? Even if it leads you to a place that's uncomfortable or that you don't wanna be. But from what we see here, it certainly looks like they, at the very least, have an argument for this. And it's gonna come down to what Judge Nathan thinks before the end of the day. On Wednesday, U.S. district Judge Allison Nathan set a briefing schedule on Maxwell's request for a new trial. The defense motion is due on January 19. The government must reply by February 2, and Maxwell will have every opportunity to respond. A week later, the judge reserved decision on whether a formal court inquiry will be necessary. So we're in a holding pattern here, folks. We don't know, right? What's gonna happen one way or the other. You'll have some people that are gonna talk about the sky is falling and this is the end of it all and she's gonna get out. And who knows, maybe that is the case. I'm not willing to hop off of that bridge yet, though. There's a lot more to see here. And really, it's gonna come down to the particulars inside of that sealed conversation, that sealed questionnaire.
- [13:48]
Cole Swindell
Hey, it's Cole Swindell. After I give everything I've got to land a perfect vocal, I usually take five before jumping into the next track. And I've learned exactly how to recharge in that time. Some folks grab coffee, I hit a quick good luck spin. Next thing you know, the break is just as fun as laying down the track. A better break makes for a better take. Need a break? Let's Chumba no purchase necessary bgw group
- [14:12]
Bobby Capucci
void were prohibited by law 21/tnc supply sponsored by Chumba Casino Every day the
- [14:20]
Cool Stuff Daily Host
world gets a little weirder and a lot more awesome. Cool Stuff Daily takes a look at everything from mining and sports space to the latest in the fight against cancer to how AI is basically changing everything. It's all the cool stuff you didn't know you needed to know. Join us for Cool Stuff Daily as we take a quick look at science, tech and the Wait, what Stories that make you sound way smarter at dinner. Subscribe to Cool Stuff Daily now because the future's happening fast and it's way too fun to miss.
- [14:53]
Bobby Capucci
Hey, I'm Josh Spiegel, host of the podcast Lunatic in the Newsroom. If you enjoy journalism that drifts into mild panic, wild overthinking, and a guaranteed nervous breakdown, Lunatic in the Newsroom is for you. It's news like you've never heard before. The only newsroom with a panic button. You'll laugh, you'll cry and gasp in horror as the show spirals completely out of control. It's not just news, it's emotionally unstable Lunatic in the Newsroom. Listen today in interviews with three news outlets on Tuesday, a juror interviewed under his first and middle name, Scotty David, described how his personal experiences with sexual abuse. This verdict is for all the victims, david told the Independent. For those who testified, for those who came forward, and for those who haven't come forward, I'm glad that Maxwell has been held accountable. And while I share your sentiments, probably not the right thing to say to the media, right? Probably a good idea just to keep your lips shut and keep it moving. But this is human nature these days. Everybody wants to be the hero of the story, right? And, you know, Mr. Scotty David had a few things that he wanted to get off of his chest, obviously. And Ol boy might have sunk the whole entire operation. David declared to the Daily Mail Ghislaine was a predator as guilty as Epstein. Can't disagree with that. Can't disagree with that at all. I agree 100%. But again, when you're a juror for a case like this, I don't know, it's probably a good idea just to tell your story walking afterwards. You know, save the, the, the conversation for around the campfire or when the family comes over for a Monopoly game or something. I know personally, I certainly wouldn't be talking to the media. I'd be. I'd be pissed already that I had to serve on a jury for all this time. Never mind wanting to go and speak to the media and, and, and extend the, the misery, because this is some harsh, heavy shit, right? I know if I was a juror here, I'd want to put it behind me and just keep it moving. But, you know, again, I'm. I don't know what Scotty David said on that questionnaire, so I'm not willing to, you know, say that this guy lied or anything like that yet, because we don't know that those are the facts. We're speculating here, and we're talking about the what ifs, but certainly there's enough smoke that there might be fire. And when the prosecutors call for an inquiry like this, you know that there's something going on there. After all I've learned, she's just as guilty as Epstein. David told the UK paper. I don't want to call her a monster, but a predator is the right word. Some jurors doubted the accounts of two of Maxwell's accusers. David told Reuters. All three disclosures raised eyebrows among legal experts, who noted that jurors were made to fill out a questionnaire asking them directly, have you or a friend or a family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? The query was followed by three separate boxes for yes, yes, friend or family member, or no. It's unclear how David answered, as the jury was anonymous and their sensitive personal information was placed under seal. Both the government and the defense characterizations of David's statements appear to be redacted. So, again, we just don't know. I know that's not the answer people want to hear right now, but I'd prefer to go that route than sit here and blow smoke up your ass or pump your tires and tell you, oh yeah, this is this and that is that when really we don't know. And I prefer for us to be correct and for us to be right as opposed to us just to fire off and say be first or whatever it might be. But when it comes to something like this, we have to get all of the information in because the crucial part is the stuff that is redacted, the stuff that we don't have access to. So we'll see what the inquiry finds. But you would think that if he. Now look, if he answered truthfully on this questionnaire and said yes and he was still able to be part of the jury, then that's on the defense. It's their job to vet these dudes. It's their job to make sure that they have the right jurors there to hear the case. So they have to be responsible for that right now, if he lied, well, that's a whole different ball game. And as they said earlier in that letter, talking about him getting counsel. Yeah, that's the kind of shit that'll scare anybody. When you get a letter like that from a federal prosecutor's office or from the court asking if you have counsel, you know, you better gear up, it's time to go, better call Saul, whatever it may be. But that's you, you know, you're in a predicament there. So there certainly are some tea leaves that you can read into a little bit, but I don't think you can go much further than that. According to Reuters, David said that he flew through the initial questionnaire and did not recall being asked about those personal experiences with sexual abuse on the form. But he added that he would have answered honestly. So I'm trying not to go too hard on this dude. But what do you mean you flew through the initial questionnaire? This is not something to fly through. This isn't the terms of service of your Pandora subscription talking about trying one of your peers here. This is a very important and serious matter. So I don't like hearing that whole I flew through anything. Based on the foregoing, the government believes the court should conduct an inquiry. Prosecutors wrote in a three page letter. The government proposes that the court schedule a hearing in approximately one month along with an appropriate schedule for pre hearing briefing regarding the applicable law and the scope of the hearing. Government respectfully submits that any juror investigation should be conducted exclusively under the supervision of the court. Well, who else would it be done under Brink security Company. Who, who's gonna have discretion over that? Maybe you guys can go dig George Mitchell back out of the, the old background and have him oversee things. Because, you know, why not? At this point, I don't even know what that means. Under the supervision of the court, all jury questionnaires were submitted anonymously under penalty of perjury, and the government recommended advising the juror of his right to an attorney for any hearing addressing the matter. Judge Nathan granted that request. So again, this dude Scotty David, by speaking to the media, really put himself in a, in a position and put the case in jeopardy, if we're being honest, as far as we know now anyway, at least in enough jeopardy where they're forming an inquiry here. So better lawyer up. You know, my advice on this podcast, I don't care if you're getting busted for a jaywalking ticket, if you have to deal with law enforcement. The answer is I want to speak to an attorney. Subject to the juror's right to decline court appointed counsel. The court will appoint the on duty CJA counsel to represent the juror. Nathan wrote. If counsel for the juror wishes to be heard on the issue of the appropriateness of an inquiry, briefing by the juror's counsel may be filed by January 26, 2022. So this is going to be, unfortunately, folks, a thing. It's going to be drawn out and we're going to have to be here every day discussing it. But guess what? We're going to be here cataloging this because it's very important and it's important to make sure that we stay on top of it every single day, because there is so much that goes on each and every day that if you even miss one day, you're behind the schedule, right? You're behind the eight ball. So this is going to go on for a while and it's going to be very interesting to see what comes of this. If the court were to conduct such a hearing, Maxwell's lawyer said all of the deliberating jurors should be examined about David's conduct. Should the defense prevail on this motion, and we believe the law and the facts are clearly on our side, it would render all other post trial motions moot. Everdell wrote in a heavily redacted letter, Ms. Maxwell should not have to expend precious time and resources briefing other motions when this motion can and should be disposition. So, excuse me, dispositive. Basically what he's saying here is that Maxwell shouldn't have to fight and spend money and time and resources on this stuff. If this guy was BSing around and she should be focused on more important matters. Maxwell was convicted on five out of six federal crimes charged against her, including conspiring to entice minors for Jeffrey Epstein's abuse and trafficking. Former federal prosecutor Mitchell Eppner, who led intake on sex trafficking cases in the District of New Jersey between 2003 and 2004, said of the development, this is huge. Well, no offense, Mr. Epner, but that was a different time. We're in a whole new era when it comes to sexual assault survivors and abuse and how people look upon these people. So while in 2003 and 2004 this might have been a gigantic deal and something that would really signal getting someone off, things are a little bit different nowadays and the landscape has changed a little bit. The question was asked and the government knows the answers that were given, said Eppner, who is now of counsel for ROTTONBERG Lippman Rich PC. I assume that he did not reveal past sexual abuse or else there would be nothing to investigate. This could easily result in a new trial. That is disconcerting. Got somebody like Mr. Mitchell Eppner here who has obviously been a lawyer for a long time, worked on both sides of the argument. The defense and the prosecution. Guy like this thinks that this could easily result in a new trial. I, I guess all we could say is stay tuned, right? Ex federal prosecutor Moira Penza, who helped convict Nexium, cult member, cult leader and sex trafficker and human trafficker. And you know, insert other scumbaggery here. Keith Raynery wrote on Twitter that Maxwell's legal team would have to prove substantial prejudice to disturb an otherwise sacrosanct jury verdict. And that is pretty important cuz it's true. Once the jury levels a verdict, it's kind of hard to get that bad boy overturned and changed. So even though we have old Scotty Boy's statements here, it's gonna be an uphill battle for Maxwell to get this overturned, to get a new trial and to get all of that in motion for herself. Now they're gonna do a look though. They're definitely gonna take a look at what went on here. If it progresses any further than that is what we'll have to see. Given jurors admission, prosecutors are right to ask for an inquiry. But if he says it was a mistake and is credited by Judge Nathan, that's probably the end of it, tweeted Penza, who is now a partner. Wilkinson Steckloff, Maxwell's attorney Bobby Sternum did not respond to an email requesting comment. So that's an interesting statement. Given the juror's admission, prosecutors are right to ask for an inquiry. Agreed. But if he says it was a mistake and is credited by Judge Nathan, that's probably the end of it. So I guess that means it would be a judgment call on Nathan's part. If she decides to credit him and say it's a mistake, then that's the end of that. I mean, I guess that's how it works in something like this. Obviously, what this really does, no matter what, is it gives Maxwell a grounds for appeal at the very least. And I've been kind of looking forward to. To, you know, not forward as in excited about it, but looking forward in time to that possibility. And I think that's what they're really gearing up for. I think they're really gearing up for that appeal. I don't know if this is going to work for them as far as get her a mistrial or whatever, but I think they're gearing up for the appeal here, folks. And that's just a gut feeling. I have nothing set in stone or I didn't have a little bird fly over here and tell me that. It's just my gut feeling. And when you look at the way Maxwell's team has conducted themselves throughout this whole thing, there was no chance that they weren't going to latch onto this. And you got the juror out here giving a bunch of interviews, and this is the result. This is what Maxwell's team is going to do. This is what they're paid to do.
- [27:52]
Cole Swindell
Hey, it's Cole Swindell. And when I spend 200 days a year rolling down the highway, the bus can start to feel smaller than a guitar case. Everyone wonders how I stay chill while the hours crawl by. Truth is, one good luck spent on Chumba. And suddenly the trip feels a whole lot shorter. Finding your space even when there isn't much to spare. Need some chill? Let's Chumba.
- [28:14]
Bobby Capucci
No purchase necessary VGW group Void were prohibited by law 21 TNC Supply sponsored by Chumba Casino.
- [28:23]
Cool Stuff Daily Host
Every day, the world gets a little weirder and a lot more awesome. Cool Stuff Daily takes a look at everything from mining in space to the latest in the fight against cancer to how AI is basically changing everything. It's all the cool stuff you didn't know you needed to know. Join us for Cool Stuff Daily as we take a quick look at science tech and the. Wait, what stories that make you sound way smarter at dinner. Subscribe to cool Stuff daily now because the future is happening fast and it's way too fun to miss.
- [28:57]
Alex Canceroitz
Hi, this is Alex Canceroitz. I'm the host of Big Technology Podcast, a longtime reporter and an on air contributor to cnbc. And if you're like me, you're trying to figure out how artificial intelligence is changing the business world and our lives. So each week on Big Technology, I bring on key actors from companies building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it, asking where this is all going. They come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon, and plenty more. So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your career choices, in meetings with your colleagues and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology podcast wherever you get your podcasts.
- [29:32]
Bobby Capucci
So really, as lame as the media are for being the culture vultures that they are basically begging these jurors for interviews, it really comes down to the juror himself. And the question that we put that, that we asked at the very beginning, did he lie or didn't he lie on that questionnaire? Once that is answered, we will know much, much more. Until then, though, we'll be here trying to put the context together, put a little more meat on that bone and try and get to the clarity right as we all swim through this merc and muck together, the idea is to get to the clear water. All right, folks, that's gonna do it for tonight. I will be back tomorrow morning. As usual, a couple of context episodes coming your way. Another that's Wild episode coming your way. And we'll keep it rolling and we'll keep our eye on what's going on here. Especially if you'd like to contact me, you can do that@bobby capuchirotonmail.com that's B O B B Y C A P U c c I@protonmail.com you can also find me on Twitter Obby Capucci. The link that we discussed plus the letter sent by the prosecutors to the judge can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. Today we're going to continue talking about juror number 50, Scotty David and the revelations that came during his interview with the media. Now, when we were talking last night, we were discussing the filing made by the prosecutors about an inquiry into what went on here. If Scotty David lied, if he didn't answer truthfully during the the question and answer session or on the questionnaire. And while that is a bit concerning in itself, them asking or basically suggesting that he gets legal Counsel is very troubling. And now we're finding out that he has retained his own legal counsel. And the person that he has retained was the same lawyer who was Anna Sorokin's lawyer. Now, Anna Sorokin was the, the, the lady who was committing fraud on people in larceny. And, you know, she was like a fake heiress saying that she was from, you know, a foreign country, blah, blah, blah. Anyway, the lawyer, Todd Spodek, who represented her, is now also representing juror number 50, Scotty David. Now, uh, Todd Spodek filed notice in the, in Maxwell's Manhattan federal case late Wednesday, confirming that he would now appear in this case as counsel for juror number for juror number 50. Uh, that's Scotty David. And he gave the interviews and he admitted saying that he swayed the deliberations by recounting his own trauma from childhood sexual abuse. Now, I'm sure that there's going to be a, a real look at what went on here. The other jurors, I'm guessing, are going to have to be talked to. Were they swayed by this? And basically, folks, what we have here now is a gigantic shit sandwich that's even bigger than before and stankier than before, and everybody's forced to take a bite. This guy Scotty David has really thrown a wrench into the situation here. And frankly, if this dude lied during the question and answer process and all the other stuff, then Maxwell's team is well within their rights to not only ask for a mistrial, but to demand one. And that pains me to even say, but at the end of the day, you can't have jurors lying and bullshitting and acting the fool. We already have hardly any faith in how the process works or how the system works. We can't be worried about this kind of nonsense as well. So the silver lining for me is, say this does become a mistrial. Does that give the federal government more time to maybe add some superseded charges, maybe hit her with a RICO charge on top of it? I mean, we all know that should have been done from jump street, and it hasn't been. So again, I'm just spitballing. I don't really know the process. Once something like this occurs, if it is declared a mistrial, we'll have to go from there. Again, I'm not a legal expert, but I would think that if you're the government, you'd want to come back even harder the next time. So I'm very interested to see what occurs if in fact, that is the case, but it certainly seems to be the way we're trending, folks. This is all bad. You know, usually with an inquiry and, you know, a juror, dereliction of duty or saying something out of line, they don't need to retain legal counsel. But it looks like this dude is in jeopardy of perjury charges, something like that. So he's retained outside counsel, not using the counsel that was going to be provided to him by the court. And away we go, as they say. So Maxwell's team has obviously applied for the appeal, and they're definitely gonna look for the mistrial here as well. And to be honest with you, they finally have something to sink their teeth in. They've been waiting for a technicality. They've been waiting for a loophole, because we all know the evidence is not something that they're interested in diving into. But you provide them with a loophole or a technicality, and they're gonna dive through that, that son of a gun. And there's no doubt about it. And that's what we're seeing play out right here before our eyes now. All because this Scotty David character, it looks like anyway, was BSing around. The more I dove into this last night after we had our chat here, the. The more it looks to me like this guy's playing games, like this guy was BSing or was looking for some spotlight or something. This is not the correct way to conduct yourself. Now look at all the repercussions. Say that that'll come in the wake of this. Say it does go to a mistrial. All of these survivors have to relive this again. All of the money that has to be spent to reprosecute it, it's just a gigantic, gigantic issue. And after all of these years of justice being denied to the survivors, and then for them to finally have a little taste of at least a little justice and for this to occur, I mean, really, the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict her. You know, this guy had to get up there and do his whole entire song and dance. So it's gonna be dicey moving forward here. And again, I'm not some sort of legal eagle or somebody that follows these kinds of cases very closely. But you would have to think with this coming to light and with how the spotlight in general has been shined down upon this case, that there's going to be some movement here. And it's even more damning, if you will, when the. The inquiry is suggesting that you get legal counsel that says to me that they know something that we don't. And the question is, what do they know? Was this Scotty David character dishonest during the questionnaire session? And if he was, and he said that he was not sexually assaulted when he really was, and then went into that juror's room and got on his soapbox, it's gonna be a. A gigantic issue and almost for sure a mistrial. So with that said, we have an article this morning from the Insider, and the author of this article is Kel, uh, Kelsey Vlamis. Headline, ghislaine Maxwell's guilty verdict will very likely get tossed and her case retired after juror comments on sexual abuse. Experts say. So that's pretty daunting right off the bat, huh? Not the. Not the greatest news to start your morning with. The kind of news that makes your coffee taste a little crappier, makes your eggs go cold a bit quicker, and just generally makes you feel like crap. That's the kind of news that is. Because how used to it are we, these people, getting off? Even if they get convicted, even when they get busted, somehow they find a way to wiggle themselves off the hook. I dare you to try that. Go ahead and get in trouble and then try and wiggle yourself off the hook on a technicality or a loophole. See how far that gets you. But when it comes to Maxwell and her friends, somehow, someway, they always find a way to wiggle off the hook, don't they? A week after Ghislaine Maxwell was found guilty of sex trafficking, two jurors in the case told media outlets that they may have swayed the jury by sharing their own experiences of sexual abuse during deliberations, revelations that could jeopardize the entire trial. You know, everybody has to have the center stage, right? Everybody has to tell their story. Tell you what. I'm ever a juror in a trial like this, the last thing I'm gonna do is speak with the media. A, they're not your friend, and B, they're not your friend. They have no interest in, you know, your wellbeing. Or do you think they care? The people that this Scotty David dude gave the interviews to, you think they care that now he has to retain legal counsel? Are they showing up hat in hand with a couple of bucks for the legal fund? Hell, no, they're not. Go ahead and sync, pal. You're on your own. Thanks for the interview. We got our clicks. That's what it's all about for the legacy media. Get them clicks. Get them clicks. What drives the news? What makes people mad at each other. How can we use this as a wedge issue? And the band played on, didn't it? Maxwell, a British socialite, a British socialite, now a convicted sex offender, author of this article and longtime associate of the convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, was convicted on five of the six counts against her on December 29 after five days of deliberation. So again, still calling her a socialite. It's absurd to me. It's like calling, you know, John Wayne Gacy, the once clown, the retired clown. I mean really. No, the child killer, the child molester, serial killer, whatever else you want to call him, he's all of it. So let's call him all of it. A juror, Scotty David, identified only by his first and middle names, told the Independent and Reuters that he used his personal experience of abuse to assuage doubts other jurors had about some of the accusers testimonies. A second juror told the New York Times they also shared a personal experience of sexual abuse that appeared to help shape the jury's discussions. So you mean to tell me that you had two jurors who lied? If that's the case, this has been bungled from the beginning. Or did the defense not even bother to ask these questions and follow up? That's the flip side of this, right? And if that's the case and the juror didn't lie on the questionnaire, then this falls directly in the lap of the defense and it's on them. And there won't be any grounds for a mistrial. As far as I understand it, if that's the case, it all hinges on what this dude said on the questionnaire. Tyler redick here from 2311 Racing. Another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with Chumba. Jump in@chumbacasino.com let's Chumba. No purchase necessary BTW group void where prohibited by law CTNC21+ sponsored by Chumba
- [42:07]
Alex Canceroitz
Casino Hi, this is Alex Canceroitz. I'm the host of Big Technology Podcast, a longtime reporter and an on air contributor to cnbc. And if you're like me, you're trying to figure out how artificial intelligence is is changing the business world and our lives. So each week on Big Technology I bring on key actors from companies building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it, asking where this is all going. They come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon and plenty more. So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your career choices, in meetings with your colleagues and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology podcast, wherever you get your podcasts.
- [42:42]
Bobby Capucci
And for me, with the federal government advising, that old boy gets himself some counsel. They probably know some stuff that we don't, and they're probably going to charge him with something again. That's just my guess. I don't, you know, have access to the court records or, you know, in the mind of what the prosecutors are thinking, but that would seem to be the path that we're on. Prosecutors filed a letter Wednesday requesting an inquiry into the remarks. Insiders. Michelle Mark reported. Shortly after, Maxwell's attorneys filed two letters requesting a new trial. And again, that had to be expected. You know, that Ghislaine Maxwell, who's fighting for her life, who's paying all this money for these lawyers, is going to exhaust every single avenue, especially a big, fat, juicy one such as this. This is a gift. This is like losing your wallet, having 10 bucks left, walking into the casino and hitting a jackpot. That's what this is like for Maxwell. And while I don't think a second trial is going to do her any better, it just draws out the process. I mean, the survivors really need to go through this again. It's going to be the same outcome. She's going to get convicted, but it's just another situation in this long, sordid tale that makes you want to bang your head off of the wall. It has been the most frustrating thing I have ever done covering this case for the past three years. Every single time we get to a point where we think we're getting some answers, only more questions arise. And it happens over and over and over again. I've never seen anything like it, honestly. Attorneys told Insider that the juror's remarks to the media were devastating for the prosecution and could likely mean the case would need to be retried. And it certainly looks like that, right? It doesn't look good. I'm not gonna sit here and, you know, give you a rah rah speech that this looks good and everything's fine here. We're all fine here, because I don't think that's the case. And the more that comes out on this and the more experts we hear from, the more I feel like this whole entire proceedings in jeopardy now, and it makes me mad as hell. This is the absolute last thing that you want to get a, that. That you want when you get a guilty verdict. Nima Romani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor, told Insider. You don't want the jurors talking to the media. You don't Want them saying something that will result in a mistrial. It's an absolute disaster. He said. This entire conviction may get tossed and we may have to retry the case. I mean, come on, really talk about a long, long road that I have no desire to travel upon. And if you think we have no desire to travel upon it, how do you think the survivors feel being forced to relive this over and over and over again when all they want to do is put a stamp on it and move on? It's just crazy to me. Again, I've never seen anything like it. And the way it just consistently is dragging out and unfurling like this huge dragon. It's just insane. Romani explained that the juror's comments posed two potential issues. Perjury or lying under oath and prejudice or a preconceived opinion that may have improperly swayed the jury. Now, that's one I don't. It's kind of a stretch for me. That's saying that the jury, the rest of the jurors are a bunch of knuckleheads and they're easily swayed. Now, we don't know what went on in that juror's room. And I'd like to hear from some of these other jurors. I don't know if we will, but I'm guessing that the prosecution, during this inquiry, is. Is going to question the other people that were in that room as to what was said, if they were swayed, and all of that other stuff. So it's going to be a meticulous look at what went on here. If the defense knew about it, they would have dismissed him. Well, that's what you would think, right? But they're human. Maybe they made a mistake. Maybe they missed it. Now, I'm not saying they did. I don't know, but it's possible. Court documents show jurors were asked during selection process if they or anyone in their families were victims of sexual abuse. David told Reuters he flew through the questionnaire and did not remember if he was asked about personal experiences. Excuse me, personal experiences of sexual abuse, but said he would have answered honestly. What do you mean you don't remember and you flew through it? I know we talked about this a little bit last night, but come on, you don't fly through something like this. You take your time. You meticulously go through it, and if you have questions, you get some answers. You don't fly through something like this. You're talking about a serious matter. Somebody's life's on the line as far as going to trial for heinous crimes. And then you have the survivors who are looking for justice, and you're out here playing games, flying through the questionnaire like you got someplace to be. If he had answered affirmatively, however, it's doubtful the defense would have permitted him as a juror. If the defense knew about it, they would have dismissed him. Matthew Barhoma, a criminal appeals lawyer in Los Angeles, told Insider he agreed it appeared very likely the case would be retried. So all I could say is buckle up, folks, and get ready. All right? More than likely, this is gonna have to be retried. We're gonna have a case of deja vu, do it all over again. And it's going to be the same kind of strategy from Maxwell's team. But in all likelihood, if the juror was lying, which it kind of seems like he was, if I'm being honest with you, then this is going to be a mistrial, and they're gonna have to retry this whole entire thing. Now, the question becomes, with Judge Nathan looking at that appointment to the appeals bench, I wonder, as far as judges, who will get this case instead or how that will even work. During jury selection, attorneys go to great lengths to avoid selecting someone who will be biased, especially in cases as notorious as Maxwell's bar. Homma said he did not want to accuse the juror of lying, but said there are two reasons a person may lie during jury selection. Look, I don't want to call the dude a liar either, right? I wasn't in the room. I don't know what was said. I don't know what happened, but it doesn't look good for him. When you have the inquiry started, that's one thing. But when they're saying that, you better call Saul, you're. You're in some jeopardy, folks. Jurors will lie to get on a jury for two reasons. If the case is notorious and if they have been victims of the same allegations. And they want to convict. He said. And that's certainly what her. Her lawyers can argue, right? Look, this guy is a victim of sexual assault. He has an axe to grind, and. And he used his personal experiences and the pain he suffered to put Maxwell behind bars as a proxy for his own abuse. That's gonna be the kind of argument that they're going to use. You and I both know it's bullshit, but that's what they're gonna say. And as far as the legalese of it, they have every right to do that. Unfortunately, Romani also said it also appeared to him that David may have lied during jury selection and citing the fact that the defense attorneys wouldn't have approved approved of him, as well as how the prosecutors reacted to his comments to the media. Again, I feel like that's the biggest red flag. The biggest issue here is how the prosecutors have reacted and how forcefully they have reacted. It signals to me that there was misconduct by this juror. Again, I don't have any evidence of that. Just my guess. Prosecutors requested an inquiry because they have an ethical duty to flag to the court concerns of possible prejudice, Romani said. However, they also took the unusual step of requesting David be appointed an attorney. Jurors say and do all sorts of things that are inappropriate or improper, but they don't get appointed an attorney, he said. And for me that's the biggest stick in the old wheel here. The fact that he was appointed an attorney or told to get outside counsel really signals to me that there's some jeopardy here and old boy is going to find himself in a pickle. The fact that prosecutors think David needs an attorney suggests they believe he may have acted criminally by committing perjury. And again, that's exactly what it looks like to me as well. The juror said their experiences persuaded others to convict. Another critical factor that could help Maxwell is that both jurors said they believe their comments helped convince the jury to deliver a guilty verdict if he lied and if what he told the media was accurate, that he used his own experience to convince the jury to convict. You have perjury and prejudice, rahmani said. Again, why would you run to the media who are not your friends and run your big fat trap. Here's an idea. Go home, enjoy the new year and be happy that Maxwell is convicted. But that's not what he did right. He had to go get his his time in the sun. Had to go and get give an interview and talk about what went on and talk about how he was the hero in his own story because he helped convince the rest of the jury. David told Reuters and the Independent that several, several jurors had doubts about some of Maxwell's accusers stories. He said he discussed his own experiences to show that memories of sexual abuse can be clear in some aspects and hazy in others. Now if he had been honest about his own sexual abuse and then he told his story to the jurors, no big deal. They rely on their own personal experiences for convictions all the time. But you have to be honest during the jury selection process for that to be valid. I know what happened when I was sexually abused. I remember the color of the carpet, the walls. Some of it can be replayed like a video, David told the Independent. But I can't remember all the details. There are some things that run together. After sharing that, he added, some jurors were able to come around on the memory aspect of the sexual abuse. I don't. I mean, is this dude telling the truth? Is he the one who swayed these jurors behind the scenes? I don't know. We'll have to see what they have to say as far as if we hear from the other jurors or what this inquiry finds. But it seems like this guy is really trying to elevate himself to the Eddard Stark of the story here, folks. Jurors often draw on their personal experiences during deliberations, according to Romani, and are free to discuss their past when doing so. It would only be an issue if David failed to disclose the sexual abuse on the selection questionnaire. And again, that is the issue, right? All of this other talk, this is just adding some context, a little more meat to the bone to try and help us understand what the hell is going on here. But the real question and the only question that matters at this point, in my opinion, is did he lie on that questionnaire? If the answer is yes, buckle up for a mistrial. If the answer is no, the defense, well, it's on them for being dumbasses. So it's one or the other. And to be honest, I'm kind of leaning towards the fact that old boy was not honest. If it wasn't disclosed, as Rahmani believes is likely the case, and David did sway the other jurors to convict, that would mean his comments caused actual harm to Maxwell, which is needed to prove prejudice. And it's usually hard as hell to prove that. But in an instance like this, when you know, it's such a high profile situation and you have this juror coming out pumping his gums, the court's gonna have to look at it and they're gonna have to look at it very, very, very stringently. Bubba Wallace here from 2311 Racing. You know what's slower than a pace car waiting at the car wash? That's when I fire up Chumba Casino. It turns those slow minutes into fast fun. With new games every week, you'll never get bored. Next time you're stuck in the slow lane, speed up with Chumba. Play now@chumbacasino.com let's Chumba. Sponsored by Chumba Casino. No purchase necessary. VGW Group void where prohibited by law, 21 terms and conditions apply. Prosecutors may argue the comments did not impact the verdict and that the jury would have voted to convict regardless. But that contradicts David's claims. Bar Homma agreed that David's comments about persuading others are especially damning. And that's really for me too, what it comes down to. If I was one of these other jurors, I'd be pissed as hell. You didn't sway anything, pal. The evidence swayed me, not you. I used your story, listened to it, took it into account, but ultimately it was the evidence that was presented by the survivors that that swayed me. That's what I'd be saying as another juror. If I was the defense team, I would be taking these quotes right out of Reuters. He said it's saved by the media for Maxwell. He added, had he not went off blabbing his mouth to reporters, we may have never uncovered it. And it's really the truth right now. I can't really blame the legacy media for trying to get the interview. That's what they do. It's their job. But at the end of the day, is this dude for real? Like, bro, you're gonna get up there and pump all kinds of nonsense and talk about this, that the other thing, elevate yourself to the Superman of the story. If it wasn't for you, the jurors would have never convicted. Blah, blah, blah, blah. Really. And now look what the end result is. Look at the fallout. It's glowing. It's like. It's like we just walked into the reactor at Chernobyl at this point. So we're going to see, folks, right? There's an inquiry scheduled. We got some time to see what's going to go on here. But you know, Maxwell's team is going to be on the PR push big time. Get ready for it. It's going to happen. But the good news is your boy will be here every single day, every single night to punch holes in their nonsense and to make sure that their bullshit narrative continues to be challenged. If you'd like to contact me, you can do that@bobby capuchirotonmail.com that's B O B B Y C A P U c c I@protonmail.com you can also find me on twitteR-O-B b ycap use CCI. The link that we discussed can be found in the description box. Alright, folks, so looking for excitement? Chumba Casino is here. Play anytime. Play anywhere. Play on the train, play at the store. Play at home. Play when you're bored. Play today for your chance to win and get daily bonuses when you log in. So what are you waiting for? Don't delay. Chumba Casino is free to play. Experience social gameplay like never before. To Chumba Casino right now to play hundreds of games including online slots, Bingo, Slingo and more. Live the chumba life@chumbacasino.com no purchase necessary. VGW Group void where prohibited by law 21/ Terms and Conditions apply.