It’s the PostI’m surprised the Post released his last name.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It’s the PostI’m surprised the Post released his last name.
I have no clue!Could it be he won't be the paying for this lawyer?
I wish there was a legal rule to where they can't talk, but I am guilty of always wanting to hear what the jury thought, in the past and after a verdict.....so, there's that.Down here in Oz I don't recall any jurors ever giving interviews - maybe it's illegal, or maybe it's my memory.
I wish there was a legal rule to where they can't talk, but I am guilty of always wanting to hear what the jury thought, in the past and after a verdict.....so, there's that.
IDK, but I kind of feel this juror was "bought" after the fact.
JMO and I have no proof, obviously, but just a gut feeling.
I don't think that follows - whatever the juror did or didn't do recently surely doesn't change what GM did or didn't do. She remains as guilty as she ever was, IMO.Oh, but Im sure somebody would talk in the future!
And GM might be even acquitted because of a huge scandal.
I don't think that follows - whatever the juror did or didn't do recently surely doesn't change what GM did or didn't do. She remains as guilty as she ever was, IMO.
Ok, I will try to explain as well as I can in foreign language as Im a foreignerI don't think that follows - whatever the juror did or didn't do recently surely doesn't change what GM did or didn't do. She remains as guilty as she ever was, IMO.
Yes, "double jeopardy". But I believe different countries have different laws about it. And in this particular case, we hadn't reached the sentencing part of the trial yet, so presumably that makes a difference?Ok, I will try to explain as well as I can in foreign language as Im a foreigner
A person cannot be tried twice for the same crime.
Let's suppose GM is sentenced and in jail.
Then, after some years, somebody finds out that 1 juror lied.
So the trial was not fair.
She is acquitted.
Well, that is my opinion.
Of course!Yes, "double jeopardy". But I believe different countries have different laws about it. And in this particular case, we hadn't reached the sentencing part of the trial yet, so presumably that makes a difference?
What are the odds that this juror was paid off by the defendant (or someone associated with) to reveal this to the media?
My spidey senses are triggered. These are powerful and very wealthy people at the top of the food chain who will go to almost any lengths. I mean look at what she’s being accused of. Paying people off has been her (and the Epstein gang’s) modus operandi for decades, to keep victims silenced. It’s not beyond them to “encourage” someone to talk to media, or lie for them.
IMOO
Yes Dotta, I get it now, sorry to be so obtuse. How do you feel about maybe having more "judge only" trials, or maybe a panel of 3 judges, for example?Of course!
That is why I WROTE earlier that it is better that the lying juror was found NOW!!!!!
I hope all is clear now b/c every time I refresh the thread somebody is quoting my previous post!
I don't think that follows - whatever the juror did or didn't do recently surely doesn't change what GM did or didn't do. She remains as guilty as she ever was, IMO.
You are never that!!!!Yes Dotta, I get it now, sorry to be so obtuse. How do you feel about maybe having more "judge only" trials, or maybe a panel of 3 judges, for example?
Use of the term ephebophilia would have required lengthy proof that JE or GM operated from that interest. It is not recognized as a psychological disorder, so I don’t think it would have gone anywhere. Minors (under 21) are children. When high school students in the age range of 15-19 (the period of late adolescence covered by ephebophilia) are gunned down, we call them children. GM’s victims were children.
Are the potential jurors checked in this aspect?