You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
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.
There's no possibility of a "conviction" as it's a civil case.
2ndly we're currently in the "burden of production" phase, which means she has to convince a court that there is sufficient evidence to make a civil case. This is before you move on to the burden of persuasion which is the case itself.
Then as it's a civil case Andrew would have to provide an affirmative defense. That means that despite "balance of probabilities" being seen as the lesser of "beyond reasonable doubt" it's not quite the same. He would have to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that the events never happened, whereas for a criminal case he could perhaps rely on unpicking one small point to get past the threshold of reasonable doubt.
He may well be totally guilty. He could be innocent as well. Not sure if this should be played out in public, considering its not a criminal case, no one has been found guilty yet and the claimant is seeking monetary damages, and not a criminal investigation by the police.
It's only not a criminal case as the US applies a statute of limitations to the alleged crimes. This in itself is unfair as it then expects an abused kid to have the confidence to stand upto someone in a position of power. This is why New York brought in legislation that would allow the victims of "historical" sex abuse a window to bring civil cases against their abusers.
I may not have got this completely right but...
It seems the contract that's just been unlocked says all of these categories of shaggers listed below are excluded from further action. And The Royal Arms Dealer is attempting to have his name retrospectively added to the shaggers list.
I can't see any downside in that for him.
It gets worse
Are we (the taxpayer) paying his legal fees?
https://twitter.com/LisaBloom/status/1478400205179408384?t=R5hefdS-_IzTI2OGqM2jGQ&s=19
Nice that Marina Hyde has a new target. The Boris Johnson stuff is always good but some new material every once in a while is refreshing. 🙂
he can be arrested anywhere else
Sorry, I wasn’t referring to his royal status and any protection that might offer him, more the combination of jurisdictions and time frame meaning he can’t be charged or convicted of a crime. So going “after money” is the only option open if his accuser wants any kind of justice in the courts. He can’t go to prison. He can be sued.
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.
I would love to know where an unemployed bloke ever got the money to buy a chalet in the first place. I don’t think a navy pension stretches that far
He'll get the money where the rest of the monarchy get it from, the public purse, we live in a world where folk who are descendants of people who robbed/killed/favoured their way into land and fortune still have that land and fortune, and even more benefits over the years.
Noooice!
He apparently flogged his Verbier chalet too which was a nest egg for his kids, so hopefully they’ll hate him even more too.
I get that this moves things on to deposition and discovery, but how do they actually compel him to get involved (being a civil case)? Don't get me wrong, if he doesn't get involved now he just continues to look even worse but I'm just not sure of the mechanisms
So I presume Andrew doesn’t have to attend the court hearing and can be tried without being there? He can just say he believes he won’t get an unfair case so not go?
The worst that will happen is he will get a fine that the tax payers will be paying for anyway?
Apologies if this has already been covered?
Civil case, he doesn't have to turn up, just his lawyer.
Andrew, meet the real world.
If he fails to respond to requests for discovery, depositions and so on the sanction would be either that he is not allowed to give evidence at trial or that judgment is entered against him (depends on the nature of what he didn't do).
Accident in either the Dartford or Rotherhithe tunnel in 3,2,1. . .
Can anyone tell me what redress she's actually after? Is it a confession of rape, or is there a stated figure (which is also presumably the cost of her dropping the case)?
I think she wants to ruin him. Thats my guess. she got half a million off Epstein. I don't think its money although if he offers enough as a settlement she is pretty much obliged to take it
But she wants to see him ruined both financially and reputation wise
Can anyone tell me what redress she’s actually after? Is it a confession of rape, or is there a stated figure (which is also presumably the cost of her dropping the case)?
I know in the US system if it's not in the criminal court you can only win by getting a pay day (and the bigger the pay day the more your case was seen to have been won) but I really really hope it doesn't spiral into making her looking like it's all about the cash. I'm guessing his team will be trying to paint her that way.
It's my ignorance, but I've no idea how she ended up where she was at 17. You'd have thought most parent's alarm bells would have been ringing like hell long before. Was she in care or have a super dysfunctional family?
Her back story is covered a bit in the Netflix programme, Filthy Rich, I seem to recall. It been a while since I watched it but it was pretty sordid stuff. Money, power, corruption, seediness.
What happens if he doesn't turn up in any form - himself, his lawyers.... just ignores it.
It’s my ignorance, but I’ve no idea how she ended up where she was at 17. You’d have thought most parent’s alarm bells would have been ringing like hell long before. Was she in care or have a super dysfunctional family?
Not really ignorance in that sense but not unusual for kids to go walkabout or live via friends outwith their parents, and the family lifestyle can play no part.
I was off on my own aged 16, hitchhiking around the country, living here, there and everywhere from the far north to the south coast, wales etc etc. It was about 3 years before i came back to the home city. I didn't leave the social work system till about 21. In that time i was still technically homeless.
Has been reported in US media and on 5live recently that Giuffre has said she will not accept an out of court settlement and is determined this goes to court.
Also reported in US that she rejected a proposed $5 million settlement.
How long before the queen finally cuts him out?
Now it's going ahead i can't see how Andrew's side can win, maybe i'm missing something, but that interview is going to sink him, all the opposition need to provide is reasonable doubt, they have a photograph to show time and opportunity, all they need is to do a bit of a song and dance in court and throw doubt on all the claims in that interview, and that's not even seeing if there's other evidence?
Can't see Andrew being allowed anywhere near the court, this is a civil case, but perjury is still a criminal act!
all the opposition need to provide is reasonable doubt
It's a civil case so "Preponderance of the evidence" in US speak i.e. a lower standard than for a criminal case
How long before the queen finally cuts him out?
Isn't that what the chalet sale is all about too, liquidising the assets so the money can be stashed and he can claim no assets to pay the anticipated massive compo claim.
Chalet sold for £17 mill, reportedly; £6 mill to clear o/s debt to previous owner; any mortgage to clear?
Reported that his legal and PR fees are running at c£3 mill.
If mummy says...you're on your own, he's stuffed.
In truth, he's stuffed whatever happens.
Edit: money trail should be easy to follow so attempts to hide cash or other assets will probably be futile.
Murray
Full Member
all the opposition need to provide is reasonable doubtIt’s a civil case so “Preponderance of the evidence” in US speak i.e. a lower standard than for a criminal case
Yeah, i put up the wrong one to try and show it's a lesser requirement for the evidence, luckily i'm not in court giving evidence with that ability out of a 50/50 choice!
Whats incredible is they are claiming the deal that was struck between the victim and Epstein where compensation was paid, means Andrew is covered, even though he wasn't there, has never met,nor had sex with the girl.
I know in the US system if it’s not in the criminal court you can only win by getting a pay day (and the bigger the pay day the more your case was seen to have been won) but I really really hope it doesn’t spiral into making her looking like it’s all about the cash.
Whatever she gets (assuming the case goes her way) a big slice of the pay out will go to, yes you guess right, the lawyers. For the lawyers this is a case that they can make millions! Millions! Why do you think she can afford their fees?
It’s my ignorance, but I’ve no idea how she ended up where she was at 17. You’d have thought most parent’s alarm bells would have been ringing like hell long before. Was she in care or have a super dysfunctional family?
Does she look like she was forced? Did anyone put a weapon to her head to "perform" the favour? She was 17 at that time and of legal age so yes it does not look good for Andrew but look at Courtney Stodden aged 16 at that time married then 51-year-old actor Doug Hutchison in 2011. Now that is weird. If you search online of celebrities/stars that behaved like Andrew there are plenty about and many of them are still alive today. I reckon they should all go to court no matter how popular they are now or then.
His only option might be to tap-up some of his wealthy mates, like his Kazakh friend he sold his Sunninghill House for well over asking. The problem is the Kazakhs might be busy dealing with something else.
Regardless of what Guiffre’s motives were/are, she was trafficked and there’s still statutory rape.
Regardless of what Guiffre’s motives were/are, she was trafficked and there’s still statutory rape.
Trafficked? I don't understand how that could happen unless she was forced or kidnapped. If it happened once, yes, I think she might be trafficked etc but it happened more than once so I don't understand why she was there again alone with those people.
Does she look like she was forced? Did anyone put a weapon to her head to “perform” the favour?
Did you have to attend a special training camp to become this offensive, or are you just naturally talented?
Trafficking as in the type that Ghislaine Maxwell was found guilty of this month.
I don’t understand
No one is surprised.