Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case

[saaby93]

Voldemort said:

Correct. He was 41 at the time he first 'met' the 17 year old Ms Roberts.

What does it matter - she never claimed anything 'happened' if youre using quote marks
Why dont people read the deposition

[JeffreyD]

saaby93 said:

Voldemort said:

Correct. He was 41 at the time he first 'met' the 17 year old Ms Roberts.

What does it matter - she never claimed anything 'happened' if youre using quote marks
Why dont people read the deposition

for someone who is so critical of others use of language you make a lot of mistakes that suit your own argument.

Almost as if you do it on purpose.

[Willhire89]

JeffreyD said:

saaby93 said:

Voldemort said:

Correct. He was 41 at the time he first 'met' the 17 year old Ms Roberts.

What does it matter - she never claimed anything 'happened' if youre using quote marks
Why dont people read the deposition

for someone who is so critical of others use of language you make a lot of mistakes that suit your own argument.

Almost as if you do it on purpose.

He does - he's a troll

Take a look at today's posting on the various threads -all desperately trying to encourage posters to engage by posting questions or challenging comments

[saaby93]

JeffreyD said:

saaby93 said:

Voldemort said:

Correct. He was 41 at the time he first 'met' the 17 year old Ms Roberts.

What does it matter - she never claimed anything 'happened' if youre using quote marks
Why dont people read the deposition

for someone who is so critical of others use of language you make a lot of mistakes that suit your own argument.

Almost as if you do it on purpose.

Oh what did I do
I dont have spell checker on this?

[Byker28i]

jimPH said:

Don't hang out with paedos.

Always a difficult one, going round your wealthy single mate's gaff and seeing loads of scantily clad underage/teenage women offering you a massage.

When you're a member of the Royal family, representing an entire nation of people, with good standing in the world, you might just think, hang on a minute....

Being a Royal, you are afforded certain privileges in life which unfortunately doesn't come without any strings attached. It's more than being a celebrity, you serve your country, crown and people and expected to hold yourself to a high standard.

A celebrity can get in a pickle and pay their way out, job done, a member of the Royal family, not so much.

If Michael Jackson was royalty he would have lost a bit more than a few million quid too.

Not just epstein, Andrew has made several bad choices of 'friends' as pointed out much earlier in this thread, it's why he lost his role as trade envoy back in 2011. Taking a notorious member of the former Tunisian regime to lunch at Buckingham Palace, taking a holiday with a Libyan gun smuggler, using an official trip to try to find a buyer for his home etc...

[Starfighter]

I was listening some 80s music and this popped up...

Prince Andrew - Nonce in a Lifetime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG1JJq_n8TY

[anonymoususer]

I sometimes wonder if Prince Andrew is trolling us
Then again the press make and stir things up
so..........

Prince Andrew ‘lobbying Queen to have royal status reinstated’, report says

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pr...

Prince Andrew ‘asks for his Grenadier Guards role back’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-a...

Prince Andrew banned from public return at ancient ceremony of Garter Knights

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-06-13/prince-andrew-...

So he doesn't get to wear his plumage hat and have lunch but it does suggest that he thinks he can make a comeback

[Byker28i]

anonymoususer said:

I sometimes wonder if Prince Andrew is trolling us
Then again the press make and stir things up
so..........

Prince Andrew ‘lobbying Queen to have royal status reinstated’, report says

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pr...

Prince Andrew ‘asks for his Grenadier Guards role back’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-a...

Prince Andrew banned from public return at ancient ceremony of Garter Knights

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-06-13/prince-andrew-...

So he doesn't get to wear his plumage hat and have lunch but it does suggest that he thinks he can make a comeback

Reports that Charles and Wills was against it...

[saaby93]

It's tricky this because the case was amicably settled with no apportioning of guilt particularly all the conjecture that appeared in the press.
There are still people doing videos with he must have done something to justify $12m both of which seem to be guesswork.
It's not an easy job to get born into.

[Muzzer79]

anonymoususer said:

it does suggest that he thinks he can make a comeback

According to the media....

Noted that Andrew himself hasn't actually said any of this.......

[BikeBikeBIke]

Muzzer79 said:

According to the media....

Noted that Andrew himself hasn't actually said any of this.......

Yeah, media nonsense.

The only way Andrew would be rehabilitated on a short timescale is if further civil/criminal cases discredit Virginia Giuffre. She's accused of recruiting the best witness in the Maxwell Trial (and that's a criminal offence with no statute of limitations). She's also got a case against Epstein's Lawyer which could damage her credibility.

Plus stuff like this:

https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/10/virginia-giuffre-pr...

So it's possible.

Rehabilitation on a longer timescale? Has he got time? I don't think so.

...and what does rehabilitation even mean? Things are never going to be the way they were before the accusations, just the association is enough.

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Monday 13th June 10:23

[saaby93]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Yeah, media nonsense.

The only way Andrew would be rehabilitated on a short timescale is if further civil/criminal cases discredit Virginia Giuffre. She's accused of recruiting the best witness in the Maxwell Trial (and that's a criminal offence with no statute of limitations). She's also got a case against Epstein's Lawyer which could damage her credibility.

Plus stuff like this:

https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/10/virginia-giuffre-pr...

Odd reporting there

metro said:

Ms Giuffre accepted a financial settlement – reported to be as much as £12million – to end her civil sexual assault case against Prince Andrew.

She claimed the duke had sex with her when she was 17 and had been trafficked by his friend Epstein.

Andrew has always vehemently denied the allegations, insisting he had no recollection of ever meeting Ms Giuffre.

According to the legal settlement that wasnt what was claimed so no wonder he denied it!

[oilit]

He settled because he knew either he would be found guilty, he had a guilty conscience, or for once in his life he put his mother before his own selfishness.

Either way, he has paid to avoid an independent jury to make a decision.

In this case, in my opinion he is neither innocent or guilty, he has just paid to silence the conversation in the courts.

That should be enough for him to realise that his privilege (paid for by the british public) has bought him his freedom, and as part of that we should have a say as to whether he should return to public life - in my eyes that should be an emphatic no.

[saaby93]

oilit said:

He settled because he knew either he would be found guilty, he had a guilty conscience, or for once in his life he put his mother before his own selfishness.

Remember that it wasnt about what was in the press and you can discount most of those

[BikeBikeBIke]

oilit said:

He settled because he knew either he would be found guilty, he had a guilty conscience, or for once in his life he put his mother before his own selfishness.

Either way, he has paid to avoid an independent jury to make a decision.

In this case, in my opinion he is neither innocent or guilty, he has just paid to silence the conversation in the courts.

That should be enough for him to realise that his privilege (paid for by the british public) has bought him his freedom, and as part of that we should have a say as to whether he should return to public life - in my eyes that should be an emphatic no.

The vast majority of American civil cases don't get to a jury. You can't conclude anything from a settlement.

[Piginapoke]

BikeBikeBIke said:

oilit said:

He settled because he knew either he would be found guilty, he had a guilty conscience, or for once in his life he put his mother before his own selfishness.

Either way, he has paid to avoid an independent jury to make a decision.

In this case, in my opinion he is neither innocent or guilty, he has just paid to silence the conversation in the courts.

That should be enough for him to realise that his privilege (paid for by the british public) has bought him his freedom, and as part of that we should have a say as to whether he should return to public life - in my eyes that should be an emphatic no.

The vast majority of American civil cases don't get to a jury. You can't conclude anything from a settlement.

Maybe not conclude but you can certainly imply that a £12m settlement to someone you have never met is a bit fishy.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Piginapoke said:

Maybe not conclude but you can certainly imply that a £12m settlement to someone you have never met is a bit fishy.

We don't know if it was 12 million, but it doesn't seem fishy to me at all, or no more fishy than any settlement. Probably less so given the imperative to get the story out of the news which is on top of all the usual advantages to settling.

He *has* met her, he may not recall it, they may not have gone to Tramp, but he *has* met her.

[Caddyshack]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Piginapoke said:

Maybe not conclude but you can certainly imply that a £12m settlement to someone you have never met is a bit fishy.

We don't know if it was 12 million, but it doesn't seem fishy to me at all, or no more fishy than any settlement. Probably less so given the imperative to get the story out of the news which is on top of all the usual advantages to settling.

He *has* met her, he may not recall it, they may not have gone to Tramp, but he *has* met her.

Good answers from Bikebikebike...we need a lot more thinking like that in the UK as a response to what we are told in the media.

[R56Cooper]

Caddyshack said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Piginapoke said:

Maybe not conclude but you can certainly imply that a £12m settlement to someone you have never met is a bit fishy.

We don't know if it was 12 million, but it doesn't seem fishy to me at all, or no more fishy than any settlement. Probably less so given the imperative to get the story out of the news which is on top of all the usual advantages to settling.

He *has* met her, he may not recall it, they may not have gone to Tramp, but he *has* met her.

Good answers from Bikebikebike...we need a lot more thinking like that in the UK as a response to what we are told in the media.

Absolutely. There are lots of reasons why cases settle. It's important to appreciate that the court's job is to determine which set of facts are more likely to have happened than the other. It may be that the truth is something completely different but if the evidence on a particular point is more credible than the evidence to the contrary then a finding will be made.

Remember the civil standard of proof is not as high as a criminal matter.

Andrew's real issue in this case was "that" interview. He painted himself so far into a corner (see, "I was unable to sweat at the time" etc) that the chances of being able to win at a civil case were probably 50/50.

Of course, the other issue is the damage to the firm that a trial would cause. Not surprised that he chose to settle as the claimant was in prime negotiating position.

[anonymoususer]

There is talk of him being rehabilitated by sending him to Scotland
I am concerned that this may lead to a surge in support for and an overwhelming victory for Scottish Independence.