DOJ-OGR-00009183.jpg

1/26/22, 3:30PM Case 1:20-cr-O0@Makihfexwellld @ beans vite fick Dewinced kad dhe WAd A2predatdr ADpay Mai fontihe ISEMENT Maxwell faced six counts relating to sex trafficking which centered on the stories of four victims. A fifth victim, Kate, was called only to show a pattern of grooming behavior and was not directly implicated in any of the counts. At first jurors struggled to agree, Scotty said, over the legal definitions of terms such as 'enticing.' He said, ‘It was super confusing. It didn't get heated. It was just confusing, and when people are confused, tones can get raised. Nobody ever yelled at other people. People would just speak, sounding frustrated. ‘So, we [realized] we had to come up with a new game plan and that game plan was, we're going to talk to each other with compassion.’ According to Scotty once the jurors had found a way to ‘understand' each other they worked methodically through each count starting with count 2. This was the only charge on which they did not convict Maxwell and related to the charge of ‘enticing’ Jane to travel for sexual exploitation. An initial vote saw 7 jurors vote guilty and 5 not guilty. Those ‘not guilty’ votes turned to 'not sure’ on further discussion. Ultimately, he said, it was not a question of Jane's credibility but rather the fact that they simply did not feel the evidence was there to meet the necessary bar of beyond reasonable doubt. Working through each charge jurors wrote out lists of evidence on a white board and attached post-it notes as they built the case for each as they saw it and deliberated towards consensus. On counts two and four - both relating to Jane - there was a 7/5 split of guilty/not sure. On counts one, three and five - all conspiracy charges - there was a 10/2 guilty/not sure split and on count six, the sex trafficking charge relating to Carolyn, all voted guilty from the start. Scotty said he never felt pressure from either the judge or the rest of the jurors to reach a verdict. In fact, he said, when the judge sent a note on Wednesday 29 December informing them that if they had not reached a verdict she would recall them the following day, they were about to send her a note saying they had reached consensus on all counts. signed an earlier £370,000 ($500,000) legal settlement with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the duke's friend. Miss Roberts, 38, one of the billionaire sex offender's most high-profile victims, claims she was trafficked by him and girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell to have sex with Andrew on three occasions when she was 17. The 61-year-old prince vehemently denies the claims and says he has no recollection of even meeting her. Judge Kaplan appeared mostly dismissive of the arguments by the duke's lawyer, Andrew Brettler. He said that part of the 2009 settlement protecting ‘other potential defendants’ that Andrew's lawyers had appeared to be leaning on was ‘unclear’ and pointed to two sentences in the text that seemed to suggest it could not be used by Andrew. Judge Kaplan also pointed to language in the agreement stating it is 'not intended to be used by any other person’ to protect themselves from lawsuits without the agreement of Miss Roberts and Epstein - again suggesting Andrew could not rely on it. While he did not immediately rule at the end of the hearing, he made clear that he was not leaning Andrew's way as he rejected much of the reasoning offered by Mr Brettler, who said the case 'should absolutely be dismissed. Judge Kaplan told the two sides: 'I appreciate the arguments and the passion. You'll have the decision pretty soon.' But he directed that the exchange of potential evidence in the case was to proceed as scheduled - which was seen as an indication he would likely rule against Andrew's motion. Sources close to the proceedings yesterday described them as 'brutal' for Andrew. During the hour-long hearing, held via video conference due to Covid, Judge Kaplan interjected several times in Mr Brettler's arguments. He told him once: ‘With all due respect, Mr Brettler, that's not a dog that's going to hunt here’ and another time asked the lawyer outright: 'So what?" https:/Awww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-103701 93/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html 9/16 DOJ-OGR-00009183