By Luc Cohen

NEW YORK (Reuters). Several notes have been sent to Alison Nathan, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan by jurors in New York deliberating on the case of British socialite Ghislaine Maxill. These notes are not intended to reveal jurors thoughts on Maxwell’s guilt and innocence. However, the notes provide insight into evidence they were discussing from the afternoon of December 20th.

WHAT IS ‘ENTICEMENT?’ MEANT?

Jurors asked Nathan to define the term “enticement” on Monday. Maxwell is charged with one count of encouraging an underage girl for illegal sexual activities, as well as another charge of conspiring to do so.

Jane, the charge of enticement refers to Jane. Jane testified that Jane began having sexual contact at the age of 14 with Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell during the trial’s initial week.

Nathan stated that Nathan would answer her by saying, “To entice is to draw in or induce hope or desire.”

JANE’S TRAVEL

On Monday, the jurors also asked Nathan if Maxwell could be convicted if it was found that Jane helped to coordinate Jane’s return from New Mexico. Jane claimed Epstein used her abuse there. But not Jane’s travel.

Nathan stated that she was confused by the question and directed the jury towards the instructions she had given them prior to deliberations.

It was clear that Maxwell had been closely reviewing Jane’s accounts of Maxwell’s involvement in her arrangements for travel. Maxwell is charged with transporting an adult for illicit sex acts, and another charge of conspiring to do so.

Jurors requested also the transcription of Juan Alessi’s testimony, an ex-Epstein employee, who claimed he drove Jane from Epstein to Maxwell’s airport. They also wanted the testimony of David Rodgers (an Epstein former pilot) who testified that Jane was often a passenger aboard the private jet of the globetrotting investor.

ACCUSER CAROLYN’S TABLES WITH THE FBI

The Dec. 21 jury asked Nathan to provide details on Carolyn’s testimony. He said that Epstein had started abusing Carolyn when she was fourteen in 2002.

Jeffrey Pagliuca, a defense attorney, attempted to undermine Carolyn’s credibility by pressing her over why Maxwell was not mentioned in her 2007 conversation with FBI agents.

Jurors demanded that the judge review the FBI conversation. Nathan said it wasn’t in evidence but that they could look at the transcript.