BBC gives Dershowitz airtime, then wishes it hadn’t
“The interview with Alan Dershowitz after the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict did not meet the BBC’s editorial standards, as Mr Dershowitz was not a suitable person to interview as an impartial analyst, and we did not make the relevant background clear to our audience. We will look into how this happened.”
I guess once you’re lodged in a scheduler’s Rolodex as a talking head, you’re there forever, even if you’re an unindicted-concupiscent.
I have an idea there’s a certain amount of sympathy for Maxwell in the upper reaches of the British establishment. She’s ‘one of us’.
Especially given who her father was.
The BBC, the Daily Mail and the Spectator, to name a few, have already played the sympathy card (although the BBC subsequently changed the headline from “The downfall of a beloved daughter” to “The story of her downfall” following a massive public shitstorm about it). There’s probably also a smidge of gender bias here; I doubt any of the media outlets would even consider trying a “beloved son” narrative.
It seems to me that Andrew is such an embarrassment to his brother that he ought to be locked up in the Tower. While extrajudicial, a lifetime locked in a comfortable little apartment out of harm’s way might satisfy all involved.
But theBrits don’t have Lettres de cachet,
“The wealthy sometimes petitioned such lettres to dispose of inconvenient individuals, especially to prevent unequal marriages (nobles with commoners), or to prevent a scandal (the lettre could prevent court cases that might otherwise dishonour a family).“
The Marquis de Sade was in the Bastille when it was stormed under a lettre de cachet.
On the question of Prince Andrew’s probable guilt or innocence, I find it curious that all the legal arguments we’ve heard from his lawyers so far have been evasions and technicalities. Just off the top of my head,
They argued that the New York court doesn’t have jurisdiction in the case because Virginia Guiffre no longer lives in the US (but she did at the time of the alleged events).
They argued that Andrew cannot be held legally liable because it contravenes the terms of Guiffre’s settlement agreement with Epstein.
They argued Guiffre being allowed to file suit so long after the fact is unconstitutional
They argued that Guiffre failed to adequately detail the nature of the alleged abuse.
What they notably did not argue is that the allegations are false, nor did they try to provide factual backup for that position. Andrew himself did make that claim, not in court but in that infamous BBC interview, which turned out to be a PR disaster.
There wouldn’t be an opportunity to argue that in court at this point. First they have to try to get the thing dismissed. If they fail that, they’ll (most likely) start arguing about the allegations. But a court considering jurisdictional questions, or the other things, doesn’t care if the underlying facts are true or not, and doesn’t want the lawyers arguing about that…
I don’t know what he said or didn’t say to the BBC, but I’m sure his lawyers are advising him to say nothing about the allegations.
Thanks, I’m not really up on exactly where the case stands at the moment.
As for what he said to the BBC, he rambled on about almost everything for a long time and continued his litany of denials, and his recurring response to questions about how and why such detailed allegations were being made if they weren’t true was to say, basically, “I don’t know. I can’t answer that”. It just got worse from there. He denies everything, despite the detailed allegations, despite the picture of him with his arm around someone that he suddenly can’t remember. I’m pretty sure his lawyers were mortified at that interview, and in retrospect probably so is Andrew.
However, this is now taking this a bit too far off track from the Maxwell story. If the suit against Andrew goes ahead we probably need a new thread for that.
Retrial?
Lawyers for Ghislaine Maxwell say she deserves a new trial after a juror told media that he used his own experience of being sexually abused to persuade other jurors who doubted witnesses.
Mistrial
It’s bad enough this guy got on the jury. But he’s bragging about influencing other jurors.
This is a late Christmas present for the defense.
Did he lie during voir dire or were her attorneys at fault?
The article says the jurors filled out a questionnaire that included questions about personal experiences with sexual assault.
They haven’t reported how this juror responded.
I’d have to say this juror wasn’t impartial.
Context is everything here.
For example, addressing another juror asking why victims didn’t come forward earlier by explaining one’s own experience could be germane but not improperly influential. OTOH, “here’s all the horrific stuff that happened to me therefore we should hang Maxwell” is not germane and could improperly skew a jury discussion.
(Disclaimer: IANAL)
Leaving aside for the moment the possibility that the juror was asked about sexual abuse and failed to disclose it, jurors aren’t expected to enter the jury room as a tabula rasa. 
Illinois Pattern Instruction (Criminal) 1.01: You should consider all the evidence in the light of your own observations and experience in life.
And, it’s absolutely pertinent for a juror to explain why they find a witness credible or not.
@John_Bredin and @Pleonast bring up valid points. If the person wasn’t asked to disclose his history when they were picking jurors, why is it perceived a problem after the fact. Outright lying is wrong for sure. But if asked “Is there anything else you’d like to disclose?” would muddy the waters considerably. I’d like to know the facts.
Here’s some news:
Now it’s 2 jurors that may have undisclosed history.
It required 2 trials to send Cosby to prison. It may take 2 for Maxwell. It’s a strong case and I don’t think much will change if it’s retried.
I want to know what the pretrial questions were.
Because while people do bring their own prejudices and biases into a jury room, those should be within an acceptable range of human experience such that one can have confidence that a jury reached a fair decision. And some things in particular cases are simply so great to be unfair on their face…like this.
For example, if a juror had a close family member killed by a drunk driver, it is almost impossible to believe that such a person would be a fair juror in a DUI case.