Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case

[MarshPhantom]

Jasandjules said:

Someone said that they heard this was on tape. Anyone else heard this?

The Sunday peeps said it was all on video.

[TTmonkey]

MarshPhantom said:

The Sunday peeps said it was all on video.

If there is something unsavoury on tape, and it gets released, it will badly damage the monarchy.

[carinaman]

1. This get out of jail plea bargain that clears any co-conspirators sounds a bit dodgy. Those promoting the Snooper's Charter do chant 'If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide' a fair bit.

2. This guilty until proven innocent lark can be a right royal pain in the posterior sometimes.

3. She doesn't look coerced in that photo? I chanced upon a trailer for the BBC fly on the wall documentary Police Under Pressure on an Australian news website. It was the one where a bloke was checking an underage girl into a hotel. One of the voices, sounded like an Asian male to me, when the CCTV footage was played said something like 'She seems to be enjoying herself'. I presume it was then a female police woman that said 'But the thing is she's fourteen.'

Perhaps she was 13 or 15, but she was definitely underage.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cctv-fo...

link with video:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shocking-hote...

Edited by carinaman on Sunday 4th January 21:30

[fido]

Oakey said:

The Daily Mail, unfortunately, are the ones that have apparently spoken to the woman in question. For anyone interested:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2895735/Th...

Interesting that on the night in question she asks the host & hostess for a photo! Not something you would do if you were uncomfortable in that situation. I wonder if later in life she has regrets about the situation and with some financial inducements decides to blab?

[TTmonkey]

fido said:

Interesting that on the night in question she asks the host & hostess for a photo! Not something you would do if you were uncomfortable in that situation. I wonder if later in life she has regrets about the situation and with some financial inducements decides to blab?

Teenagers think they know everything and are in control at all times. Only later, they realise they have been used and abused.... Perhaps.

[XJ Flyer]

carinaman said:

1. This get out of jail plea bargain that clears any co-conspirators sounds a bit dodgy. Those promoting the Snooper's Charter do chant 'If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide' a fair bit.

2. This guilty until proven innocent lark can be a right royal pain in the posterior sometimes.

3. She doesn't look coerced in that photo? I chanced upon a trailer for the BBC fly on the wall documentary Police Under Pressure on an Australian news website. It was the one where a bloke was checking an underage girl into a hotel. One of the voices, sounded like an Asian male to me, when the CCTV footage was played said something like 'She seems to be enjoying herself'. I presume it was then a female police woman that said 'But the thing is she's fourteen.'

Perhaps she was 13 or 15, but she was definitely underage.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cctv-fo...

link with video:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shocking-hote...

Edited by carinaman on Sunday 4th January 21:30

The issue of jail bait situations probably goes with the territory of those who think the object is all about looking for a casual shag with a good looking young woman.As opposed to just keeping it clean and simple in looking for a young wife which obviously guarantees compliance with age of consent laws.While the behaviour of the former just add to the ageist agephobic attitudes and discriminatory laws directed towards the latter.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/6993608/Jac...

www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/she-was-15-i-was-...

In this case I'd guess that Andrew's credibility all depends on wether he was just looking for love with a young woman or something more sinister.As usual based on the premise of innocent until proven guilty but the circumstances don't look good at face value in seeming to be closer to the Brando case than the Philpot family's.

[xjsdriver]

TTmonkey said:

If there is something unsavoury on tape, and it gets released, it will badly damage the monarchy.

Good!!!

[anonymous-user]

xjsdriver said:

Good!!!

Most will disagree with you there.

[RDMcG]

One of the other alleged perpetrators is a very famous lawyer called Alan Dershowitz. This is interesting, because he not only denies it and has been very specific about his representation of Epstein, but he is going for blood against the legal team prosecuting the case. Dershowitz want blood in a big way and had launched a series of countersuits against them including a move for disbarment. This guy is very formidable, and he wants a to more than just being proven innocent He wants to destroy the entire team. He might just do it.

While not directly impinging on the involvement of the Duke, should Dershowitz succeed, ( and I am betting he will), it will badly damage the overall credibility of the prosecution, which may in turn reduce any likely pursuit of the Duke. Will e iterating to see.

[XJ Flyer]

RDMcG said:

One of the other alleged perpetrators is a very famous lawyer called Alan Dershowitz. This is interesting, because he not only denies it and has been very specific about his representation of Epstein, but he is going for blood against the legal team prosecuting the case. Dershowitz want blood in a big way and had launched a series of countersuits against them including a move for disbarment. This guy is very formidable, and he wants a to more than just being proven innocent He wants to destroy the entire team. He might just do it.

While not directly impinging on the involvement of the Duke, should Dershowitz succeed, ( and I am betting he will), it will badly damage the overall credibility of the prosecution, which may in turn reduce any likely pursuit of the Duke. Will e iterating to see.

Assuming that her claims can't be backed up with evidence and/or get thrown out of court as being baseless then surely the newspapers are at risk of a massive claim against them by Andrew/the Royal Family.

[HoHoHo]

All a non-story and will be chip paper in a week or so.

Lawyers will make sure of that

[MarshPhantom]

Jimboka said:

xjsdriver said:

Good!!!

Most will disagree with you there.

So you'd prefer there was no evidence for the sake of the monarchy?

[don'tbesilly]

MarshPhantom said:

Jimboka said:

xjsdriver said:

Good!!!

Most will disagree with you there.

So you'd prefer there was no evidence for the sake of the monarchy?

Whereas you'd prefer the story to run regardless of whether there is any truth to the allegations.
Your posts make that very clear.

[MarshPhantom]

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

Jimboka said:

xjsdriver said:

Good!!!

Most will disagree with you there.

So you'd prefer there was no evidence for the sake of the monarchy?

Whereas you'd prefer the story to run regardless of whether there is any truth to the allegations.

No different to Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall etc. Why should the royals be exempt?

[don'tbesilly]

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

Jimboka said:

xjsdriver said:

Good!!!

Most will disagree with you there.

So you'd prefer there was no evidence for the sake of the monarchy?

Whereas you'd prefer the story to run regardless of whether there is any truth to the allegations.

No different to Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall etc. Why should the royals be exempt?

So what are the similarities between this case involving the Duke of York and that of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall?


I'm not suggesting that the Royals should be exempt from anything btw.

[Vipers]

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

Jimboka said:

xjsdriver said:

Good!!!

Most will disagree with you there.

So you'd prefer there was no evidence for the sake of the monarchy?

Whereas you'd prefer the story to run regardless of whether there is any truth to the allegations.

No different to Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall etc. Why should the royals be exempt?

So what are the similarities between this case involving the Duke of York and that of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall?


I'm not suggesting that the Royals should be exempt from anything btw.

Didn't the Duke of York have 10,000 men whereas Jimmy Saville had.......................

[MarshPhantom]

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

Jimboka said:

xjsdriver said:

Good!!!

Most will disagree with you there.

So you'd prefer there was no evidence for the sake of the monarchy?

Whereas you'd prefer the story to run regardless of whether there is any truth to the allegations.

No different to Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall etc. Why should the royals be exempt?

So what are the similarities between this case involving the Duke of York and that of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall?


I'm not suggesting that the Royals should be exempt from anything btw.

We all heard about the allegations against them before they were proven guilty, that's just how it goes.

[don'tbesilly]

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

don'tbesilly said:

MarshPhantom said:

Jimboka said:

xjsdriver said:

Good!!!

Most will disagree with you there.

So you'd prefer there was no evidence for the sake of the monarchy?

Whereas you'd prefer the story to run regardless of whether there is any truth to the allegations.

No different to Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall etc. Why should the royals be exempt?

So what are the similarities between this case involving the Duke of York and that of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall?


I'm not suggesting that the Royals should be exempt from anything btw.

We all heard about the allegations against them before they were proven guilty, that's just how it goes.

So you're suggesting that the Duke of York is guilty of what exactly?

[glasgowrob]

Guam said:

This is quite intriguing as the whole concept runs counter to the prevailing rumours over the years regarding Andy's predilections.

Difficult to square away both of them tbh

ever thought the whole thing is a ruse by the palace to show Andy as preferring taco to sausage?

[don'tbesilly]

Guam said:

This is quite intriguing as the whole concept runs counter to the prevailing rumours over the years regarding Andy's predilections.

Difficult to square away both of them tbh

Are you getting the Duke of York confused with the Earl of Wessex?