Concerns Ghislaine Maxwell Could File For Mistrial After Juror Breaks His Silence

There are concerns that Ghislaine Maxwell could lodge a claim of mistrial after one of the jurors described his own sexual abuse ordeal.

Scotty David - who requested to be identified by his first and middle names - said that he helped other jurors see things from the victim's viewpoint.

Maxwell, 60, who was labelled as 'dangerous' by the prosecution during her three-week, New York trial, helped entice vulnerable teenagers to Jeffrey Epstein’s various properties for him to sexually abuse between 1994 and 2004.

After she was found guilty, Scotty told the Independent he believed all the victims who testified in the case. He also revealed how all of the accusers corroborated each other and were supported by other evidence.

Speaking to the publication, he said: "This verdict is for all the victims. For those who testified, for those who came forward and for those who haven’t come forward.

“I’m glad that Maxwell has been held accountable. This verdict shows that you can be found guilty, no matter your status.”

Addressing the testimony of the victims, Scotty said: “They were all believable. Nothing they said felt to me like a lie. I know what happened when I was sexually abused.

“I remember the colour of the carpet, the walls. Some of it can be replayed like a video. But I can’t remember all the details, there are some things that run together.”

Commenting on questions over why the victims kept going back to Epstein and Maxwell, Scotty David said: “We are not here to judge these victims.

“We are here to judge whether we believe their stories, but we are not here to judge the decisions they made or didn’t make.

“We cannot judge what they did or didn’t do afterward. It doesn’t change that it happened.”

According to Sky News, Scotty said he went into the trial firmly believing that Maxwell was 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Addressing why they found Maxwell not guilty on one count, which alleged she enticed accuser 'Jane' across state lines, he said: “We simply didn’t see enough direct evidence to convict on count two.

“It wasn’t about not believing Jane. I personally was willing to find her guilty on count two.

“But we all decided in the end that there wasn’t enough evidence.”