You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
But she’s said that it wasn’t “fun for her at the time” repeatedly in court and in public
When has she said it in court?
But she’s said that it wasn’t “fun for her at the time” repeatedly in court and in public. So, in order to make this claim, you’ve got to assume that that’s a lie.
Did she say that to Andrew if they did in fact have sex? If she did and then again nail him to the wall.
You’re assuming that she’s just cynically trying to make a buck. That’s she’ splaying at being a victim, just for the pay-out.
I am assuming nothing, I am saying its possible. Are you assuming it's impossible?
I am assuming nothing, I am saying its possible. Are you assuming it’s impossible?
You can create any number of alternate possibilities. Given that Maxwell's and Epstein's sex trafficking of young women and girls in order to satisfy themselves is now public knowledge through the courts, and one of those women is undoubtedly Giuffre; neither of us have to assume anything.
Edit: In order to say what you've said, you got to make the assumption that although Epstein and Maxwell clearly did what they did, and were guilty, that uniquely amongst all their countless victims, Giuffre was aware, complicit, and manipulative enough to wait decades to miss her chance at a criminal case, in order to go therough the trauma of a civil case...just for the pay out..
Like I said, that level of disassociation is weird.
You can create any number of alternate possibilities. Given that Maxwell’s and Epstein’s sex trafficking of young women and girls in order to satisfy themselves is now public knowledge through the courts, and one of those women is undoubtedly Giuffre; neither of us have to assume anything.
You are though, you are assuming she actually had sex with Prince Andrew and that it was in some way illegal. You are assuming that Prince Andrew knew she was illegally brought to the UK. You are assuming she made it clear to him that she didn't want sex with him and he ignored it.
If you are not assuming that and can point to some evidence other than she's said so 20years later, when he's equally saying he didn't 20 years later then I am all ears.
You know Ranos, you could’ve saved me a hell of a lot of typing across multiple threads over the last couple of days if you just used google occasionally.
I'm not clear on what claim you're making or what evidence you're relying on. It's up to you to clarify and substantiate, not me.
I don’t know how often I can say the same thing in slightly different ways, this is getting tedious now. “Child” has a specific meaning in English law. Outside of that, it is ambiguous and potentially misleading. That is all.
No, "child" has different meanings depending on the context. In this context, you were using it incorrectly.
Are we talking about “unacceptable” (ie, morally bankrupt) or illegal?
I don't think something has the illegal for you to be sued (INAL - and the US is weird so who knows). Clearly if I do commit a crime against you I might have a civil liability for the damage too, but I can be sued for damages if I flood a neighbours house, no crime has been committed but my actions, or inactions have caused a loss to someone else and the civil courts will look to remedy that. I can't see a fundamental reason why if I participate in a legal but sleezy scheme which causes damage to someone else who wasn't a fully willing participant in that scheme (and it is of course for the court to determine that), that I shouldn't be liable to remedy that damage. (In the US they also have the concept of punitive damages which goes beyond just making good the damage, and with Juries able to set damages can result in figures far beyond we would see in the UK).
Again: the charges against Andrew is that he had sex with her against her will because she was scared of repercussions if she didn’t. There’s also a count of battery which it also explains as having non-consensual sex with her, which I don’t fully understand unless they’re using coy language to refer to a BDSM session.
I don't think he's charged with anything (unless the US use that term differently to here). The wording from the court papers is: "Prince Andrew committed sexual assault and battery upon Plaintiff when she was 17 years old. As such, Prince Andrew is responsible for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress pursuant to New York common law. The damage to Plaintiff has been severe and lasting.". I wouldn't infer much about the battery wording - its lawyer speak for doing it repeatedly, it doesn't mean there was significant violence involved.
To be honest, it’s not wholly clear to me either as why they’re not calling it rape, unless that’s a harder charge to get to stick?
There may be many reasons, once you start labelling it with specific offences like that you run into different legal definitions and e.g. in the UK would require some evidence of penetration, arguments about reasonably inferred consent etc.
Morally, yes of course, it’s horrific from beginning to end. But people don’t go to jail for being immoral.
And Andrew can't go to jail for a civil case either.
I guess it hinges on how much he knew about her situation, he could have been oblivious to the entire thing but given the sheer scale of Epstein’s operation that seems vanishingly unlikely to me.
To some extent, the case should probably hinge around the question of his intent to cause distress. However his outright denials that he even met her would somewhat undermine his credibility if the Jury accept that he did, so make it hard to turn to a "something happened, but I meant no harm" line. In fact I suspect she may even argue that those denials continue to cause her distress!
Surely no-one is that naive by the age of 40?
Smart lawyers might even have tried to argue that as a Prince he is incredibly naive and other people normally shield him from the horrors and risks in the world to an extent normally people don't experience!
PS. I'm all for the man being allowed to test the case in court, and to attempt the arguments before the case gets that far that the case is not valid; I'm astounded at some of the comments here from people who seem to suggest that if her allegations are all (or even mostly) accurate that Andrew might have done nothing wrong?
Poly - I think some of the more confusedfolk on here are forgetting several importnat factors
Its a civil case not criminal
Its US law notUK
civil standard of proof is lower
for what its worth I do not see Andrew as committing a crime in the UK. However thats not the question here
Morally Andrew is contemptible
Literally the first two google hits are a dictionary definition and the Wikipedia entry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child#Biological,_legal_and_social_definitions
If you read the next section it answers another of your questions too.
Which context?
for what its worth I do not see Andrew as committing a crime in the UK. However thats not the question here
Possibly if he knew she'd been trafficked?
Morally Andrew is contemptible
Think we're all agreed on that.
I can be sued for damages if I flood a neighbours house, no crime has been committed but my actions, or inactions have caused a loss to someone else and the civil courts will look to remedy that.
That's a good point actually, I hadn't thought of that. There is, presumably, some legalise somewhere which defines this or sets precedence? I don't know how that works.
I don’t think he’s charged with anything (unless the US use that term differently to here).
The wording was mine, if it's incorrect than I apologise, as I said I'm still trying to work all this out.
And Andrew can’t go to jail for a civil case either.
Again, I didn't know that. Thanks.
Smart lawyers might even have tried to argue that as a Prince he is incredibly naive and other people normally shield him from the horrors and risks in the world to an extent normally people don’t experience!
I was going with "it's a bad idea when cousins marry" but that works too. 😁
“Child” has a specific meaning in English law
That's as maybe but the case is concerned with US law where child is defined differently. As is their law on consent.
Literally the first two google hits are a dictionary definition and the Wikipedia entry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child#Biological,_legal_and_social_definitions
If you read the next section it answers another of your questions too.
Which context?
You still haven't said what claim you are making and which of the definitions you are relying on to support that claim. I note also that the link you've provided doesn't have any sources for its claims about the developmental stages of childhood.
Oh I give up.
Ransos - will you give up on this. You have shown to be wrong so you keep on moving the goalposts and your position is absurd
Biologically a child becomes an adult at puberty
legally it varies depending on jurisdiction and context. Even in England it depends on context.
Oh I give up.
Despite not trying very hard at all. Oh well.
Ransos – will you give up on this. You have shown to be wrong so you keep on moving the goalposts and your position is absurd
No, I don't think I will. My point was substantiated some time ago. If the best you can manage is "you're wrong because I say so" then you don't have much in your locker.
Now I really get an insight into how annoying I used to be ( and maybe sometimes are still 🙂 )
One last go then I really am leaving it because this is daft.
I was saying that the term "child" is ambiguous without further context. You've agreed with this - you've made the same statement several times over.
You've then said that it's clear in "this" context (and that I'm incorrect - how?) without saying what "this" context is that you're referring to, despite me asking you twice. So I don't know what else you think I can do with this.
Why is so important to you that we have to be able to call Andrew a child abuser, do you have some ulterior motive here or do you just need to 'win'? It may be technically correct in terms of UNICEF's definition but no layperson would read that statement and even consider that it was referring to a 17-year old. Before this thread I had no idea about that definition, even.
If you heard that someone you knew had been having sex with children, what sort of age range would initially jump to your mind? Bullshit would it be 17.
If that's not clear then I have nothing else, so I'm done with this argument.
Now I really get an insight into how annoying I used to be ( and maybe sometimes are still 🙂 )
Heh. I very nearly wrote "I think I've just discovered what it must be like for folk when they're debating with me..."
🙂
If you heard that someone you knew had been having sex with children, what sort of age range would initially jump to your mind? Bullshit would it be 17.
Did they travel to a private island, to have sex with someone trafficked there, who was under the age of consent there? Was the accuser using the "New York Child Victims' Act", under which she is considered to have been a minor at the time of the abuse, to pursue her case in court?
And that would be your first thought, would it?
In threads like this I sometimes wonder how the partners of some people are treated. Just from a statistical point of view there ther is a hogh probability of ther being both victims and abusers.
Some of the attitudes here stink.
And that would be your first thought, would it?
🤣
Nice.
I just looked it up, the age of consent in New York is 17 (though raised to 18 just recently).
And that would be your first thought, would it?
I admire your tenacity in having a pointless argument. I intend to keep commenting on the case against Andrew, not a hypothetical person where we don't know... the accusations, the jurisdiction, the previous case history for those connected to case... etc. Your "someone you knew"... were they travelling around the world to be with their convicted sex offender and trafficking mates to have sex with their victim?
I just looked it up, the age of consent in New York is 17
Now look up the “New York Child Victims’ Act” and who it considers a minor when it comes to sex abuse claims.
I just looked it up, the age of consent in New York is 17 (though raised to 18 just recently).
Pretty sure it's 11 under some circumstances. 😱
I reckon even Fred West might find that a bit low.
Now I really get an insight into how annoying I used to be ( and maybe sometimes are still 🙂 )
Heh. I very nearly wrote “I think I’ve just discovered what it must be like for folk when they’re debating with me…”
It's like overhearing the confessional......🤣
I intend to keep commenting on the case against Andrew, not a hypothetical person where we don’t know…
That wasn't clear to me, because you replied to a post where I wasn't. Sorry.
Now look up the “New York Child Victims’ Act” and who it considers a minor when it comes to sex abuse claims.
I did, albeit briefly. It appears to mostly revolve around extending the statute of limitations regarding how long a victim has to claim, rather than defining consensual ages, so I didn't think it relevant. Could be wrong, it's the first I've heard of it and I didn't go into it in depth.
That wasn’t clear to me, because you replied to a post where I wasn’t. Sorry.
🤣
Back of the net.
Strangely, I'm not remotely interested in the "term child in context" aspect of this either, but it has prompted two absolute zingers IMHO.
That wasn’t clear to me, because you replied to a post where I wasn’t.
Well, you could just read the title of the thread.
Your hypothetical is pointless and unanswerable, because you need to know the details of the case... the locations, jurisdictions, laws, accusations, history, and surrounding offences. Every case should be looked at on its merit.
Is two consenting 17 year olds having sex, in England, anything to do with child abuse? No.
Is someone in a position of power, taking advantage of a trafficked 17 year old, trapped on a remote island, where the age of consent is 18, anything to with child abuse? Not sure, but I wouldn't be haranguing someone for posting that they thought it was.
Well, you could just read the title of the thread.
Because one of this forum's defining features is its unwavering dedication to staying on topic?
Your hypothetical is pointless and unanswerable, because you need to know the details of the case…
Which is what I've been saying all along. Without those details, just going "hey, did you hear that Brian sleeps with children" is the sort of economy of facts that makes for a good Daily Express headline* and stirs up lynch mobs outside the house of a Pediatrician. You can't just throw it around in isolation unless of course that's what you want people to think.
In your example, "Is two consenting 17 year olds having sex, in England, anything to do with child abuse? No." Replace "17-year olds" with "children" and read that back. It's not enough information, is it.
Would it not be fair to suggest that as a result of this discussion we are a little more knowledgeable than we were at the start? I for one have learned a deal.
Anyway. Let's follow your advice. I didn't leave an argument just to pick the same one up with someone else!
(* - in so far as they have any interest in facts, anyway)
If you heard that someone you knew had been having sex with children, what sort of age range would initially jump to your mind? Bullshit would it be 17.
You sound a little like Andrew's cousin or whoever it was that was on the telly defending him recently saying "its not right to call him a paedophile, that term means pre-pubescent"
Its possible to be technically accurate and ridiculously out of touch at the same time.
Make no mistake, I'm not defending him.
I said this at the start, you might've missed it. The problem with calling people paedophiles when they aren't - aside from the obvious damage done if they're later found innocent - is that it devalues the word, it dilutes it. If people start reading that someone has been outed as a paedo and then it turns out that the victim was 17, it could condition them into making that same assumption in future cases involving actual paedos.
Words have power.
Its funny that America tries 'children' as adults under criminal law when the 'child' has committed something like a murder. Their own laws state a child as someone being under 18, yet can try,convict and imprison someone who is well below that age.
I'm guessing he believes his royal charm can sway the jury?
How deluded is he?
Man, didn't see that coming.
I bet the palace aren't happy!
Hope this goes as well his the Maitliss interview decision. 👍
I’m guessing he believes his royal charm can sway the jury?
I'm guessing that he won't go any where near the courtroom. But that his expensive lawyers can outmuscle and outspend her lawyers, and therefore create enough confusion and doubt for him to get away with it.
All that money on lawyers and he goes and does this. He'll be slopping out with Maxwell next. Did he misinterpret 'doing bird'?
I imagine his lawyers think they can con a jury more easily than a judge.
I'd expect that he would have had to tratify in either case.
I’m guessing that he won’t go any where near the courtroom. But that his expensive lawyers can outmuscle and outspend her lawyers, and therefore create enough confusion and doubt for him to get away with it.
That worked well for Maxwell.........
I’d have thought trial by jury, after you’ve basically filmed quite possibly the worst interview in history wouldn’t be a good idea, it reminds me of that Simpsons trial with Bart and mr burns!
I think this is the poker equivalent of 'All In' .
They're going to be arguing on minor technicalities. I even suspect the jury is going to be hit with, Americas long standing ally references
Looks like an aggressive move intended to put pressure on Giuffre.
I don't think she'll back off but...if she does and accepts an out of court settlement, if offered, she'll be criticised but andrew is stuffed whatever he does.
Out of court settlement - he's succeeded in buying her off; she was pressured into settling; everyone has their price.
In court - embarrassing personal details about him are disclosed/proven; irrespective of jury verdict, he further damages royal family. He's clearly incapable of thinking on his feet and that, combined with his inbred arrogance, will look terrible and appearances/perceptions will matter in this.
I think that this is another moment of "maitliss interview" delusion from Andrew - or potentially he's doubling-down to try to scare the royal family into their (financial?) support.
Personally, after watching his interview, I was left with the impression that he's under the delusion that people would just unquestioningly accept whatever bullshit he came up with, tug their forelock, and be on their way. The fact that he did an interview that was so obviously going to be a car-crash, against the advice of his PR/press teams, demonstrates this. I think he believed he could just brass-it-out.... and this latest decision feels just like that.
Personally, after watching his interview, I was left with the impression that he’s under the delusion that people would just unquestioningly accept whatever bullshit he came up with, tug their forelock, and be on their way.
Same. His arrogance is staggering
Same. His arrogance is staggering
He's being poorly advised as the lawyers are claiming he never had a friendship with Ms Maxwell, despite several papers stating that they dated in the past! It can only be a money thing now and he loses either way.
As much as I'd like to think it's due to his hubris I reckon his lawyers just reckon they use obfuscation and technical legal doohickory to confuse a jury to return an inconclusive verdict
Should up the ante now and say for a jury trial, instead of civil, its made criminal.
I can see where his legal team is coming from on this. Technicalities indeed. She is going have an impossible time of knowing who exactly the photographer is and thats just a single point.
Also he's saying this happened here, here and here , but NOT here, where you say the 'abuse' took place
Or the denial of events ever taking place, but in the clear due to the previous payout which included anyone else who did have sex with her, and although he denies he was one of them, that waiver includes him.
Whatever happens, the chances of him ever being asked to be patronage of the Girl Guides is absolutely zero.
I’m guessing that he won’t go any where near the courtroom. But that his expensive lawyers can outmuscle and outspend her lawyers, and therefore create enough confusion and doubt for him to get away with it.
Keep in mind that its a civil case - tested on the balance of probabilities and not every part of her action needs to succeed for her to "win", its not like a criminal case where reasonable doubt or some critical point of the case could scupper everything else.
All that money on lawyers and he goes and does this. He’ll be slopping out with Maxwell next. Did he misinterpret ‘doing bird’?
Have you misunderstood what it means to ask for a jury in a US civil court case? I think she may also have suggested it should be a jury?
I don’t think she’ll back off but…if she does and accepts an out of court settlement, if offered, she’ll be criticised but andrew is stuffed whatever he does.
I'd be amazed if she backs down without at least a public admission that she was telling the truth (or at least that large parts of her account are accurate) and that there was some element of wrong doing on his part. I'd think its better for her to lose a jury case than settle for an undisclosed sum and no admission of wrong doing.
thestabiliser
Free MemberAs much as I’d like to think it’s due to his hubris I reckon his lawyers just reckon they use obfuscation and technical legal doohickory to confuse a jury to return an inconclusive verdict
But it’s a civil case, it’s going to be theatrics and a lot of hearsay, and if Andrew does his honourable stuff again he’s going to look bad to the jury, confusing them will also just make the jury side with the American girl who’s on the other side
He’s being poorly advised as the lawyers are claiming he never had a friendship with Ms Maxwell, despite several papers stating that they dated in the past! It can only be a money thing now and he loses either way.
In fairness just because the press say it, doesn't make it true! I think his wording was more specific than no friendship (that would be daft to claim - he invited them to Balmoral!) but no close friendship (or something suitably subjective!).
A significant chunk of Americans don’t think things have moved on since George III so the idea of a member of the UK royal family, partiularly one with a semi-detached view of his own self importance, requesting a jury trial is a joke (I realise that if he doesn’t settle that he won’t have a choice about a jury trial).
Who is advising him, how much are they getting paid, & can I apply for a job?
Radio 4 had an interview with an ex US prosecutor this morning. She pointed out the Ms Guiffre has already requested a jury trial, so Mr Windsor doing the same makes no difference - Ms Guiffre has the right to have this civil case tried by a jury.
She also thought the rest of the submission was very standard.
Surely this is master stroke. If her lawyers prove he was a close friend/associate of Epstein then he should be covered by the agreement she signed and the case thrown out.
If they don't there is no way he could have known she was trafficked and the case thrown out.
Or this might just be posturing to lower any settlement.
Or shock horror he might not have known anything and simply had his picture taken when someone came up/was pushed towards him at a party. As a Prince I suspect he has had his picture taken with a lot of people and I suspect Epstein took many such pictures irrespective of if anything else happened so he could imply something might have happened if his associates ever turned against him.
Americast interviewed an excellent US lawyer recently and he talked through how things might pan out. He suggested the most likely outcome is the Andrew will default, basically not show up. He will be found guilty in his absence but without any form of trial. He will claim that that he would not have had a fair trial due to his profile and that is why he did not attend, so in his mind guilty on a technicality only. He will then use that to justify not paying up and good luck chasing his wealth from the US.
Even if he was to attend and be found not guilty, the publicity of a trial could potentially be worse that guilt through default.
Have you misunderstood what it means to ask for a jury in a US civil court case? I think she may also have suggested it should be a jury?
Radio 4 had an interview with an ex US prosecutor this morning. She pointed out the Ms Guiffre has already requested a jury trial, so Mr Windsor doing the same makes no difference
yes, I heard similar on R6 news this morning. She said all Andrew Windsor had done is agree to it.
II like this bit from the BBC website "On the matter of a photograph of the prince with his arm around Ms Giuffre, with Maxwell in the background, his lawyers say they do not have enough information to admit or deny its existence."
Um guys, scroll up a bit and the photo is there. So yes, it does exist.
II like this bit from the BBC website “On the matter of a photograph of the prince with his arm around Ms Giuffre, with Maxwell in the background, his lawyers say they do not have enough information to admit or deny its existence.”
Um guys, scroll up a bit and the photo is there. So yes, it does exist.
That's not actually what the lawyers wrote though!
What they actually said:
38. The below photograph depicts Prince Andrew, Plaintiff, and Maxwell at Maxwell's home prior to Prince Andrew sexually abusing Plaintiff.
Prince Andrew lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph thirty-eight of the Complaint.
It could be that Prince Andrew is unable to confirm that the photograph was taken at Maxwell's home, or perhaps that the premises was even Maxwell's home. More likely he can't recall if it was taken before or after abusing her 😉
Its all over?
Settled?
Original photo lost?
What is the latest news, have we forgiven him and realised she was just trying grab some $$$?
Bugger...fun over!
Thanks BillMC. I wonder if we will ever see the numbers involved.
I was looking forward to seeing him in court, desperately trying to wriggle his way out of it.
He avoids court
She gets compensation
His reputation is trashed.
Everyone sorted?
"Prince Andrew intends to make a substantial donation to Ms Giuffre's charity in support of victims' rights.
How thoughtful
I was looking forward to seeing him in court, desperately trying not to sweat
to wriggle his way out of it.
Everyone sorted?
I suspect not.
He was always going to do this - there was no way his legal team were going to let it get to court.. Based on previous performances he'd get torn apart if cross examined.
I really wanted to see him sweating in the witness box but realistically he was never going to go to court.
Would it be noncencical to think we'll be paying for this?
Can we still have a revolution?
His legal team probably said to her how many £million will it cost to make this go away...
Wonder if you'd be able review donations to her charity accounts if it gets a massive boost?
The duke also pledged to "demonstrate his regret for his association" with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by supporting the "fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims".
He also commended the "bravery of Ms Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others".
What an utterly cowardly little shitty slimeball he is. We can only be thankful that all those close to him will know just exactly what he is – and it extends to well beyond just being an utterly cowardly little shitty slimeball.
Hmm, I wonder if the bank of mum (ie: us) made this possible in exchange for his titles etc last month?
I suspect all those close to him have known a long time just exactly what he is and aren't particularly fussed. I think they get a bit annoyed when it's "the Firm" getting tarnished but it's only the little people...