Forum menu
At what point does the Queen (and the future Kings) distance themselves from his behaviour in the past and in court at present?
At what point does the Queen (and the future Kings) distance themselves from his behaviour in the past and in court at present?
I think they probably already are, but I can't see any of them publicly commenting on it, it wouldn't do any of them any favours.
The most logical course of action for them is to keep shtumm and let the chips fall where they may for Andrew.
However, doesn't Andrew basically get kept by the Queen? Therefore any compensation paid is in fact from the Queen's purse....?
He would have to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that the events never happene
Surely it's for her to prove that those events did happen? (Not quite the same).
Therefore any compensation paid is in fact from the Queen’s purse….?
which in reality means the taxpayer will be paying the bill
Does the Queen know what her son is attempting to do?
It always takes me by surprise when foreigners actually say out loud that they think Queen is some sweet little old granny, and not the latest head of a ruthless multi-million pound operation that will do anything (like any other corporation) to protect it's self and it's money, including and not limited to having laws bent and broken in it's favour.
@kelvin fair point, understood now
but, what if,
after the giuffre case is settled
could another accuser(s) come forward, pressing for criminal charges?
Not in the US (or NY, ie from this period) because it will be outside the statute of limitations. Unless there's more recent incidents, or incidents in a jurisdiction with a different SoL which I guess is possible.
Not sure if other uS states have different SoL or whether that is federal.
Now Maxwell may have the opportunity to claim a mistrial after juror says he was a victim of abuse and may have influenced the result.
@kelvin No SOL for rape in NY and many other states.
Other states vary.
Plenty of scope for more parties to come forward.
I would imagine, esp. with Maxwell prosecuted and the Epstein settlement being made public, a success for the Giuffre case against the royal defendant, either out of court or in court, would encourage more victims to come forward for either civil or criminal charges.
sauce for SOL:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/rape-statutes-of-limitation-maps-table/
Nothing about the US Judge's decision that was expected late yesterday anywhere on BBC today, which is odd as it was being covered up to yesterday
I’ll be honest and say that I don’t understand why this case is going to court.
I can’t beleive that there is any REAL proof for either side to use in their case.
If you are her how do you prove that you were coerced into having sex with Prince Andrew?
If you are him how do you prove that you didn’t have sex with Ms Giuffre?
I totally understand why he wants to avoid court – the case is unwinnable for him and she is likely to win simply because Epstein was involved and he’s been convicted! Andrew will be guilty by association and that is not right/fair or good use of the justice system.
He may well have done the deed but he shouldn’t be convicted as it cannot be proven.
In civil cases all a claimant has to prove is that it is more likely than not that the facts necessary for them to make out their case are true. I get the impression from the above that your idea of what amounts to proof requires way more certainty, though how REAL proof differs from any other kind has me stumped. It is quite possible that Roberts can prove her case to the necessary standard. She may have issues affecting her credibility to deal with, but Mountbatten-Windsor may end up having quite a few more.
It is also the default position in all civil cases that proceedings (pre-trial and at trial) are in public, though if you can persuade the court there is a good reason for this not to be the case, they might agree to hold certain parts in private.
As far as I am aware, that applies on both sides of the Atlantic.
Other states vary.
Which is why I said this combination of jurisdictions and the time frame means that she can only pursue him for money, if she wants justice. She can't see him jailed for what he did (if he did it) to her. I was just pointing out that whenever people say "she's just after money", it is the only option open to her. She can't do anything to see him jailed, even if all her claims are true. It's not her choice that suing is her only option (other than letting him off, if he did anything).
encourage more victims to come forward for either civil or criminal charges
Lots of speculation there, but yes, if there are other alleged victims as regards Andrew, then one might be in a position to push for criminal charges. Thats a lot of mights and maybes though, I find that highly unlikely that anyone else will come forward as regards Andrew. More likely that other alleged trafficking victims might come forward as regards others connected to Maxwell and Epstein, if she is successful as regards Andrew.
Are there any details of the allegations anywhere yet?
How old she was, what he did etc etc
Hopefully (for victims of these sorts of crimes) the judge will say that the contract can't apply so broadly. But if the judge says the original contract still stands, does Giuffre have to pay back the $500,000? Will she get sued by Epstein's estate for breach of contract?
Nothing about the US Judge’s decision that was expected late yesterday anywhere on BBC today, which is odd as it was being covered up to yesterday
Not a final decision, but reading this gives an indication of the judges feeling.
https://apple.news/Adb2hzF_LTCivzwS00-MytQ
The judge obviously just wants to make Andy sweat 😅
Are there any details of the allegations anywhere yet?
How old she was, what he did etc etc
BBC have it on their news site, but essentially she was trafficked to have sex with him age 17 and he knew of the trafficking. Possibly they also had sex in some US states where 17 was under age?
Hopefully (for victims of these sorts of crimes) the judge will say that the contract can’t apply so broadly. But if the judge says the original contract still stands, does Giuffre have to pay back the $500,000? Will she get sued by Epstein’s estate for breach of contract?
The terms of the agreement are simply being tested in court, if it is found to apply to our royal pervert, then her separate case doesn't go ahead in NY. If it doesn't, then the case proceeds to a full hearing. Either way, Giuffre will be following its terms so won't be in breach of it.
that would be then statutory rape, is that also outside the SoL or is there a different situation for categories of rape?
as regards specifics - at this point it's not up to the allegation to discuss all details, at present the situation is whether there's a legal reason why the case can't be made. But certain 'comments' have been made eg: the can't sweat thing. They said he was sweaty, he says it can't be true then as I can't sweat, they say can you give any proof to justify that, he says it's private. Private or not if that was possible to prove (and I can't believe if true that it wouldn't be recorded somewhere in Dr's notes or whatever) surely that would be worth disclosing.
"BBC have it on their news site, but essentially she was trafficked to have sex with him age 17 and he knew of the trafficking. Possibly they also had sex in some US states where 17 was under age?"
Does it detail how she was threatened or coerced etc ie what made it trafficking rather than her willingly going to UK to hangout with a prince?
Does it detail how she was threatened or coerced etc ie what made it trafficking rather than her willingly going to UK to hangout with a prince?
Although the accuser didn't give evidence in the Maxwell trial, the circs would presumably be the same - plus a minor couldn't really consent anyway.
that would be then statutory rape, is that also outside the SoL or is there a different situation for categories of rape?
Criminal authorities both here and in the US have made it clear they're not interested in Andrew. This is a civil case for damages, so the only jeopardy for him is financial and reputational (what's left of it).
plus a minor couldn’t really consent anyway.
Apart from she was not a minor in the UK, if it turns out he had sex with her in the US in a state where the age of consent is older than 17 then I get it.
@bazzer US Virgin Islands, consent age is 18.
and she is claiming he had sex with her there?
I am not being a dick I am just trying to get the facts straight and a quick google was a bit limited.
Are there any details of the allegations anywhere yet?
How old she was, what he did etc etc
and she is claiming he had sex with her there?
I am not being a dick I am just trying to get the facts straight and a quick google was a bit limited.
You need to polish up your google skills - the complaint she filed in the court is on the public record. A copy is available here (ironically with the wrong name in the link - makes you think ;-))
I don't think further details will emerge until later this year.
Does it detail how she was threatened or coerced etc ie what made it trafficking rather than her willingly going to UK to hangout with a prince?
No it doesn't. But that's potentially even less relevant than whether she was over or under a particular state's age of consent. To ask the question suggests that you think its OK for a Prince in his 40s to unquestioningly have intimate involvement with a teenager at the behest of another man and woman in their 40s. Even Andrew doesn't seem to have thought that - or his PR position might well have been totally different to the "never met her, pizza express, can't even sweat" argument...
I believe (informed by my in-house lawyer!) that the Epstein/Giuffre settlement agreement had a clause stopping claims against any other party, as named in the agreement. Other parties could be included in this with the agreement of either Epstein or Giuffre. Well, he's dead so can't agree , & she certainly won't vote for xmas!!
The case in the US (as I understand it) is that she was trafficked out of the US to the UK where the alleged sexual activity took place. Under US law, if a minor (ie under 18) is taken from the US and abused elsewhere, the abuser is still liable under US law. So the fact that she was in the UK and above the age of consent here, is irrelevant
To ask the question suggests that you think its OK for a Prince in his 40s to unquestioningly have intimate involvement with a teenager at the behest of another man and woman in their 40s.
I'm sure it goes on all around the country on a daily basis. A creepy older guy plying young women with gifts on the understanding there will be a return in the form of sex? Sure, it's super-distasteful. But is it illegal? For the prince it doesn't really matter since the main risk to him is damage to reputation. At the moment it's just *his* reputation that's in tatters. But if this goes to court it'll extend to the whole royal family and, by extension, the country.
Anyone feeling sorry for air miles Andy, being hidden away and having to slum it at Windsor castle, rather than being wined and dined at warmer and friendlier places, on behalf of the UK of course 😟
A creepy older guy plying young women with gifts on the understanding there will be a return in the form of sex?
You've missed a step. A "couple" of creepy older people recruiting and trafficking underage girls to another jurisdiction, and another older person then using that "hospitality" by taking advantage of one of those trapped girls.
I'm surprised he didn't settle some time ago. Is he looking for vindication? He strikes me as arrogant and not particularly smart.
i_scoff_cake
Free Member
I’m surprised he didn’t settle some time ago. Is he looking for vindication? He strikes me as arrogant and not particularly smart.
I think anyone who has watched that interview will have the opinion he's arrogant, and that his hubris will be his downfall, reality is he's in his 60s now and the playboy days are behind him, he'll happily disappear off around the world if he can.
He's always been the favourite, but with his mum nearing 100 i doubt he'll be getting cover for long
I can't help but having a fascination to seeing how this all plays out having spent around 5 hours in his company on the golf course a few years ago (me caddying)... I think I posted about it in the early pages of this thread.
At the moment it’s just *his* reputation that’s in tatters. But if this goes to court it’ll extend to the whole royal family and, by extension, the country.
That is quite an extension you've built there! The UKs reputation is arguably in tatters anyway, and the Royal Family is an embarrassment to a huge part of the population who'd gladly see this finish them off so we can move on.
Maxwell's lawyers going for a retrial.
One of the jurors has gone on camera and said he was a victim of (unrelated) abuse....and how relating that to the jury influenced their decision...
IANAL but doesn't part of being tried by your peers include them using their own life experiences to inform and educate the other members of the jury.
I get that if the complaint was one of 'I was abused as a kid, therefore I want this person convicted' but it's not, it's more like 'In my own lived experience, the description of how memory works and remembers parts vividly and not others is completely believable'
Maxwell’s lawyers going for a retrial.
One of the jurors has gone on camera and said he was a victim of (unrelated) abuse….and how relating that to the jury influenced their decision…
I read that the jurors were asked if they were victims of past abuse anyway. So this question was already resolved. My main concern would be that the juror in question courted publicity and possibly earned money for an interview after the trial. It could thus be argued that he was incentivised, after the fact, to find a guilty verdict. It's all very dodgy on the face of it and that juror is an utter fool for seeking publicity.
For those familiar with Jim’ll Paint It
IANAL but doesn’t part of being tried by your peers include them using their own life experiences to inform and educate the other members of the jury.
Yup sees bizarre that having relevant life experience that helps the jury make a more informed decision can be presented as a bad thing.
If a John Grisham novel I read years ago is to be believed though the whole process of jury selection etc in America is pretty nuts and involves lots of 'political' trading around race/gender etc.
I’m sure it goes on all around the country on a daily basis. A creepy older guy plying young women with gifts on the understanding there will be a return in the form of sex?
1. young women? or girls?
2. and what are the consequences if the young woman decides no I don't want to do this today - is it simply that the "gifts" are not going to be showered upon her?
Sure, it’s super-distasteful. But is it illegal?
Well potentially it is. Ignoring any question of being above or below a particular age of consent, or even seemingly consenting in the first place, if there is coercion then there's probably a criminal issue. Trafficking, even of adults is likely an issue. BUT it's a civil case, I'm not convinced his actions actually need to be illegal for the court to find he has a liability.
For the prince it doesn’t really matter since the main risk to him is damage to reputation. At the moment it’s just *his* reputation that’s in tatters. But if this goes to court it’ll extend to the whole royal family and, by extension, the country.
I actually can't see how his reputation will be that much worse if it goes to trial. 90% of people will already have made up their mind and be in the "Andy's a perv" or "if you were in his shoes and its being handed to you on a plate you would, and anyone how says otherwise probably just hates the monarchy" types).
I actually can’t see how his reputation will be that much worse if it goes to trial. 90% of people will already have made up their mind
Very much this.