Pretty much 100% of my posts on this forum are about conspiracy bullshit like birthers, which used to be the principal focus of this board before someone decided that the historical data here was inconvenient for them.
Portrayed by Tracy Morgan, with Star Jones having joined the cast of "The View".
A couple of thoughts.RVInit wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 12:29 am Orgies among adults do not require immunity from prosecution. So, the fact that multiple "known and unknown" people were granted immunity by Acosta tells me that other adults were involved in those sexual encounters with minors.
For my part, I absolutely believe Prince Andrew was involved in sex with Giuffre, his answers to questions during his interview this past year were absolutely not the answers an innocent person would normally give. Instead of just saying "no" he spent all night trying to give logical reasons for why he didn't do this, that, or the other. A person who did not engage in that behavior normally just says "No, I did not". He was unable to say those words. His interview is available for anyone to watch, I think I may have posted it here, not sure if it was this particular thread or another one. It's on YouTube at any rate. I also would not be at all surprised if Dershowitz was involved in some of it. His story about getting a massage from an "old Russian woman" and he "left his underwear on" is just too weird. And methinks he doth protest way freaking too much. I have no idea if others whose names are recognizable were involved, but again, you don't have to grant immunity from prosecution to adults who were involved in sex with other adults.
And it is not unusual at all for a victim of sexual predation to be foggy on details, and even sometimes later remember things that had been forgotten. I myself have experienced those very things. For many years I couldn't even remember the name of the perpetrator, and that was entirely due to the fact that I deliberately made an effort to forget as much as possible about my experience. If I had had to tell my story 20 years ago and then tell my story 5 years ago the details would have been different both times and I only wish that none of it ever happened. I have in the last 5 years been able to face what happened, but 20 years ago, not so much. I couldn't even tell you the man's name 20 years ago. His name actually popped into my head entirely unexpectedly during a conversation with my mother. She made a comment about a victim of childhood sexual abuse who was in the news, and that comment triggered intense anger in me and all the sudden quite unexpectedly several details about my experience, including the man's name came flooding back.
It's not just Giuffre's side of the story about Prince Andrew but combined with photographs that clearly show that she was with him at Ghislaine Maxwell's house upstairs where the bedrooms were located along with his inability to simply deny any of it with "no" answers to questions are enough to cause me to believe it most likely to be true that he had sexual relations with her when she was a teenager and he an adult.
Thank you for your post, Res ipsa.Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 8:41 amI love how this "people are saying" thing works.raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 8:58 pm We already have some names and accusations. Andrew. Dershowitz.
It is worth listening the victims. Hearing what they have to say. Acting as if they are people - human beings with stories - instead of props in a play.
One victim. One. Virginia Giuffre. Her story is unlike any other Epstein victim, and she has made claims concerning Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, the governor of NM whose name I forget, and one or two other relatively obscure persons. She has not added to the list, so we can be pretty confident that there will be no more names forthcoming from her.
In all this supposed bargaining with Maxwell, why is there NOTHING coming from ANY of the victims (other than Giuffre) about other men?
Recycling a half-remembered pastiche of repetitive press coverage all based on Giuffre's claims does not pass for evidence of some wide ranging operation that trafficked minors to anyone other than Epstein.
Historically, the emphasis at Fogbow has been in cutting through conspiracy theories and dealing in facts.
I'm just going to address that as a scientist. Research shows that memories of trauma vary in accuracy because of the fragile nature of memory. For some, the memory is crystal clear. For others, the memory of the trauma isn't crystal clear. Some dissociate during traumatic events. Others do not.Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:03 am I'm going to say this in the most general terms possible and it's not directed at any one person or particular argument.
If you've been molested or raped, it doesn't matter if you live a hundred more years, you will NOT forget one minute detail. It's a matter of whether or not you choose to relive that agony publicly (and pray people believe you rather than judge you) or bury it so deep James Cameron couldn't find it.
WTF??
I will defer to your expertise but I will say that I was 12 and I remember every detail and that was over 50 years ago.LM K wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 2:54 pmI'm just going to address that as a scientist. Research shows that memories of trauma vary in accuracy because of the fragile nature of memory. For some, the memory is crystal clear. For others, the memory of the trauma isn't crystal clear. Some dissociate during traumatic events. Others do not.Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:03 am I'm going to say this in the most general terms possible and it's not directed at any one person or particular argument.
If you've been molested or raped, it doesn't matter if you live a hundred more years, you will NOT forget one minute detail. It's a matter of whether or not you choose to relive that agony publicly (and pray people believe you rather than judge you) or bury it so deep James Cameron couldn't find it.
I was molested when I was 6. Because I was so young, my memory of the event isn't crystal clear. I know I didn't dissociate.
I try to avoid generalizations when it comes to trauma. Esp when looking at memory of trauma.
x4 And I absolutely believe that you remember every moment. I was speaking generally. I hope I didn't offend. If I did, I sincerely apologize.Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 7:53 pmI will defer to your expertise but I will say that I was 12 and I remember every detail and that was over 50 years ago.LM K wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 2:54 pmI'm just going to address that as a scientist. Research shows that memories of trauma vary in accuracy because of the fragile nature of memory. For some, the memory is crystal clear. For others, the memory of the trauma isn't crystal clear. Some dissociate during traumatic events. Others do not.Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:03 am I'm going to say this in the most general terms possible and it's not directed at any one person or particular argument.
If you've been molested or raped, it doesn't matter if you live a hundred more years, you will NOT forget one minute detail. It's a matter of whether or not you choose to relive that agony publicly (and pray people believe you rather than judge you) or bury it so deep James Cameron couldn't find it.
I was molested when I was 6. Because I was so young, my memory of the event isn't crystal clear. I know I didn't dissociate.
I try to avoid generalizations when it comes to trauma. Esp when looking at memory of trauma.
<Don't look at the comments. Don't look at the comments. Don't look at the comments.>NEW - Judge approves Ghislaine Maxwell to get a "booster" shot.
Such jurors should face legal consequences for lying about their lives in jury selection.Uninformed wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 3:27 pm
Letter:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .568.0.pdf
I should add that after further reading it is not definite that the juror “lied”, more that their post-verdict comments raised the possibility.
Was this a lie? Probably not. But when he "flew through" the questionnaire, he made an error that could have potentially extreme consequences for the trial and verdict.During jury deliberations after the trial of British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, some jurors initially doubted the accounts of two of her accusers, one member of the jury said on Tuesday night.
This juror, who asked to be identified only by his first and middle names, said some of the jurors had issues with the credibility of witnesses known as Jane and Carolyn, two of the four women who testified that Maxwell set them up with the late financier Jeffrey Epstein as teenagers.
He said that after some of the jurors questioned the accuracy of the two women's memories, he decided to share his own experience of being sexually abused as a child. He said that he remembered most important elements of what happened to him, but not every single detail. That swayed some jurors, he said.
"When I shared that, they were able to sort of come around on, they were able to come around on the memory aspect of the sexual abuse," Scotty David, a 35-year-old Manhattan resident, told Reuters in a phone interview. He gave an earlier interview to The Independent.
During jury selection, hundreds of prospective jurors were given questionnaires asking, among other things, if they or anyone in their families had experienced sexual abuse, court records show.
For those who answered yes, the judge in the case asked during follow-up questioning if it would affect their ability to serve as a fair or impartial juror, the records show.
Scotty David said he did not recall being asked about his experience during follow-up questioning, known as voir dire. He said he "flew through" the initial questionnaire and also did not recall being asked on the form about personal experiences with sexual abuse, but that he would have answered honestly.
In a separate letter, Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team opposes the request for a court inquiry on how the juror's press interviews square with his voir dire.
They argue the judge "can and should order a new trial without any evidentiary hearing."
This exact issue, potential jurors' not disclosing incidents in their past when asked before the trial had started, is a common enough. Especially when the past incident involves abuse.Uninformed wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 3:57 pmI should add that after further reading it is not definite that the juror “lied”, more that their post-verdict comments raised the possibility.
A juror who served in Ghislaine Maxwell's New York sex abuse trial has retained a lawyer after revealing to reporters that he had been sexually abused as a child, the trial judge announced on Thursday.
In interviews published by the Independent and the Daily Mail, the juror said that he told his fellow jurors during the long trial deliberations that he was sexually abused as a child. He said that he used his story to demonstrate how a victim might not remember sexual abuse perfectly, but that doesn't mean that it never happened.
The idea of memories and their connection to the experiences of sexual abuse victims, which was key in a case centering on decades-old sexual abuse allegations, was a topic of debate between prosecution and defense lawyers. Both sides brought memory experts in to testify during the trial.
The juror's revelations that he used his experience to help give jurors insight on the issue of memory and sexual abuse is now threatening to upend Maxwell's guilty verdicts.
He told the Daily Mail that he could not remember a question on the 50-page questionnaire that asked potential jurors whether they experienced sexual abuse or knew a friend or relative who had. But he asserted that he had answered all of the questions truthfully.
He also told the site that he went into the trial with the "innocent until proven guilty" mindset, but eventually determined that she was guilty based on the evidence and accounts presented in court.
"I don't want to call her a monster, but a predator is the right word," he told the Daily Mail.
The juror has retained attorney Todd Spodek, who represented Anna Sorokin and Genevieve Sabourin, the woman convicted of stalking actor Alec Baldwin, the New York Post reported.
No that I've learned that the questionnaire was 50 pages, I'm a bit more accepting of the juror's mistake.bob wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 10:01 pmThis exact issue, potential jurors' not disclosing incidents in their past when asked before the trial had started, is a common enough. Especially when the past incident involves abuse.Uninformed wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 3:57 pmI should add that after further reading it is not definite that the juror “lied”, more that their post-verdict comments raised the possibility.
Recall the juror who was asked whether he had participated BLM rallies. No, but had attended a DC MLK rally; no misconduct.
The big issue is going to be whether the nondisclosure was intentional or inadvertent. (This "negligent nondisclosure" is an interesting twist.)
I read somewhere that the defense wants a decision about mistrial within 30 days. That's impossible.
Judge Alison Nathan on Wednesday accepted the bid, announcing a timeline “for the Defense to move for a new trial in light of the issues raised.”
Her ruling also noted how prosecutors had called for counsel to be assigned for an inquiry into the juror who “has given several interviews to press outlets regarding his jury service in this case.”
In her order, Nathan gave the juror’s attorney until Jan. 26 to brief the court on his behalf, with all the submissions and responses due in by Feb. 9 ready for a decision.
