A second Maxwell juror has come forward!

[Tomconroy]

The NYT is reporting that a second juror now says that they had been sexually abused as a child and shared this with the jury. What a mess:

In another potential complication, a second juror described in an interview with The New York Times having been sexually abused as a child. This juror, who requested anonymity, said that they, too, had discussed the experience during deliberations and that the revelation had appeared to help shape the jury’s discussions.

The two jurors’ disclosures could be particularly problematic if they failed to note their experiences to the court during jury selection. All the potential jurors in the case were asked in a confidential questionnaire whether they or any relatives or friends had been the victim of sexual abuse or harassment.

Maxwell Verdict Is Clouded After Juror’s Disclosure of Past Sexual Abuse https://nyti.ms/3eSLXsO

[bluestarone]

1. Whole thing STINKS to high Heaven

WTF?

[spanone]

2. Two jurors lied to get on the jury?

[global1]

4. Or Are They Being Paid To Lie Now? Hmmm......nt

[bamagal62]

5. My thoughts exactly.

[spanone]

6. Yep 👍🏼

[onenote]

12. Are they lying now about having been sexually assaulted?

Obviously, it's easy enough to figure out whether they told other jurors of their experience. If they did, the question is why they didn't disclose it. If they wanted Maxwell to get off, wouldn't it have made more sense for them to hold out against a guilty verdict rather than implicate themselves after the fact?

[ShazamIam]

7. I don't think we know if they lied, maybe they checked yes and it was ignored or missed?

[hlthe2b]

3. The questions are innumerable but not all suggest an issue with the prosecution.

Given the $$$, level of prominence for those involved (identified and NOT) I think there is also a need to investigate fully. Why are these jurors only speaking NOW that they have delivered a guilty verdict--when they surely had every opportunity to bring this forward to the judge much earlier or at least during deliberations? Is it (devil's advocate) POSSIBLE something is motivating them now that is less benign than we might take at face value? I honestly don't know. But, it is impossible not to have some cynicism towards all aspects of this case.

I say with a big IF that IF those jurors behaved improperly to get on the jury to begin with, or were exploited ($$$?) in some way to speak out now in favor of the defense getting a retrial or even if they were genuinely negligent but sincere in not speaking out of their experience that should have had them removed from the jury earlier, I hope they face consequences TOO.

[uponit7771]

8. If this question wasn't part of jury selection then so what? tia

[onenote]

15. It has been reported that the question was part of the juror questionnaire

Reportedly, all of the prospective jurors were given questionnaires asking, among other things, whether they or anyone in their families had experienced sexual abuse.

[uponit7771]

16. Whoa ... not good

[Mr. Ected]

9. Something like this goes to the core of the case

If they lied to be put on the jury, they should face enormous penalties including the cost of a re-trial.

What is WRONG with people?

[onenote]

10. Why didn't they just hold out against a guilty verdict?

Rather than admit to lying?

[Disaffected]

13. I'm reluctant to get involved in this speculation but,

I suppose the reason might be that they lied to get on the jury so they could vote guilty (because they were biased by previous sexual abuse).

[BSdetect]

11. If she was innocent till found guilty surely she would have no problem with such victims?

Of course being guilty she wants to eliminate people who suffered like her victims.

[NQCowboy68]

14. Check their bank accounts