Prince Andrew - Court

[KhaoYai]

I can't quite work out how Virginia Giuffre (Roberts) hopes to win the law suit she's just issued against Prince Andrew.

 

She claims that the Prince sexually assaulted her on 3 separate occasions, in 3 different locations, 20 years ago.  Without trying to attribute guilt or innocence surely the facts are that only 2 people that know if any sexual relations took place between the two.  Unless she has retained DNA evidence (let's not go there) from the events then it would seem to me that proving that fact is impossible. I would very much doubt there were witnesses to the said copulation.

 

But, let's imagine that she has some form of evidence, her next problem is proving that it was assault. She was 17 so there's no chance of 'technical rape'.

 

The thing that I have difficulty with, and I would expect a judge would have the same problem, is that she claims it was assault yet she by her own statement, admits it happened 3 times on 3 separate occasions. - the problem with that is surely obvious?

 

'Ms Giuffre - then known as Virginia Roberts - says she was assaulted at the London home of Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, and at Epstein's homes in Manhattan and Little St James in the US Virgin Islands.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58550197

 

In no way am I condoning sexual assault of any kind whatsoever but neither do I condone people claiming events took place that wreck peoples lives - seemingly without any evidence.  The brown stuff sticks so no matter what the outcome of this case, Prince Andrew will be tainted by it forever.

 

Without some form of evidence, this case would almost certainly not even get a hearing in the UK, what do our North American bretheren think of its chances of being heard in a US court?  The point of this post is not to enter into any row regarding the activities of Prince Andrew and I won't be drawn on that - I'm questioning the legal aspects.

[Kwasaki]

2 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

I'm questioning the legal aspects.

She claims she was sexually assaulted her on 3 separate occasions, not once 3 times was she a prisoner.

Epstein lawyers have already paid out on her claims so I heard today making Andrew clear of any charges apparently.

What don't understand is what she has done apart from :- Oh I have just remembered that 20 years ago I was assaulted I'll contact a lawyer.

[roo860]

[cmarshall]

7 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

She claims she was sexually assaulted her on 3 separate occasions, not once 3 times was she a prisoner.

Epstein lawyers have already paid out on her claims so I heard today making Andrew clear of any charges apparently.

What don't understand is what she has done apart from :- Oh I have just remembered that 20 years ago I was assaulted I'll contact a lawyer.

There were witnesses to the activities of Epstein including Ghislaine Maxwell and others.  There is photographic evidence.  Giuffre was a minor at the time and therefore legally incapable of consent.  For minor victims of sexual assault statutes of limitation, if any, are waived.

 

He's guilty and she will win in court if it ever gets to a trial.

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

There were witnesses to the activities of Epstein including Ghislaine Maxwell and others.  There is photographic evidence.  Giuffre was a minor at the time and therefore legally incapable of consent.  For minor victims of sexual assault statutes of limitation, if any, are waived.

 

He's guilty and she will win in court if it ever gets to a trial.

Yeah I've not heard much news on apart from a lawyer.

The thing that make me ask questions is why take so long before you bring an assault charge and apparently there's been a pay out already. 

Is there gonna be another Opra Winfrey programme. ????????

[cmarshall]

30 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Yeah I've not heard much news on apart from a lawyer.

The thing that make me ask questions is why take so long before you bring an assault charge and apparently there's been a pay out already. 

Is there gonna be another Opra Winfrey programme. ????????

Read up on the 2005 Florida case against Epstein which dropped all Federal charges and sent him to jail, night only, and which contrary to the law, the victims of Epstein's crimes, including Giuffre, were not informed of the plea deal.

[KhaoYai]

8 hours ago, cmarshall said:

There were witnesses to the activities of Epstein including Ghislaine Maxwell and others. 

And how does that prove that Prince Andrew had sex with this girl?  In no way would that be evidence of the facts - I don't know about the US courts but for this type of case a UK court would work on the basis of 'innocent unti PROVEN guilty' they do not use the test of

'PROBABILITY'.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, cmarshall said:

Giuffre was a minor at the time and therefore legally incapable of consent.

Again, I can't speak for the events that are claimed to have happened on US soil but she certainly was not a minor in the UK where in the matters of sexual activity the age of consent is 16.

 

8 hours ago, cmarshall said:

He's guilty and she will win in court if it ever gets to a trial.

And your evidence is?

[KhaoYai]

8 hours ago, cmarshall said:

There is photographic evidence. 

Are you claiming that photographic evidence of Prince Andrew and this girl having sex exists?  I very much doubt that. Mere photos of them together would not be accepted as evidence that an assault took place - not where the test is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. If the test was 'Probability' there is a very small chance that such photos would be accepted.

 

Talking purely with regard to UK law (which is why I'm asked about US law), if a jury was found to have reached a guilty verdict based on probability, they would be dismissed and their verdict refused under judicial direction.  Such cases have occurred in the UK where judges have failed to make such directions and in the vast majority of those cases, winning an appeal is almost a certainty.

 

'He's guilty and she will win in court if it ever gets to a trial' do you have some secret evidence on which to base your statement?

 

Please stick to matters of law not opinion - I have no opinion in this matter as there is, as far as I know, no admissable evidence.  In the UK we don't convict people on opinons and even though I'm not familiar with US law, I very much doubt they do either.

 

If a court convicts on the basis of a young girl simply claiming someone sexually assaulted her 20 years ago - we will be in a very sad and indeed, dangerous place.

 

Without direct evidence, I doubt this case will go forward, let alone succeed.

[cmarshall]

59 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

And how does that prove that Prince Andrew had sex with this girl?  In no way would that be evidence of the facts - I don't know about the US courts but for this type of case a UK court would work on the basis of 'innocent unti PROVEN guilty' they do not use the test of 'PROBABILITY'.

 

Again, I can't speak for the events that are claimed to have happenes on US soil but she certainly was not a minor in the UK where in the matters of sexual activity the age of consent is 16.

 

And your evidence is?

The case that Giuffre is bringing against Prince Andrew is a civil suit.  While the presumption of innocence still applies, the standard of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in criminal cases, but "by the preponderance of evidence," i.e. more likely than not.  You will notice that both standards are indeed based in varying degrees on probability.  Since the US system of law is based on English law, I am sure the same is true in the UK.

 

  There will be testimony from other girls who were victimized and trafficked by Epstein/Maxwell.  If, as part of a plea deal in her own case, Ghislaine Maxwell were to testify in the Giuffre case that yes, she groomed girls for sex and trafficking by Epstein, and yes, Giuffre was indeed among those trafficked to the Windsor boy, and if relevant video tapes or photographs are located that support the allegations, then a jury might well decide that Giuffre's claim are more likely true than not.

 

 

 

 

[KhaoYai]

11 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

I am sure the same is true in the UK.

The test in the UK is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  I only spent 1 year on law at University but that is one thing I learned for sure.

 

Can you steer me to the basis of your claim that 'the preponderance of evidence' would apply in the US? Its not a basis I've heard of.

 

Further, I'm fully aware that the case is being brought under civil law but again, not all civil cases are based on 'probability' in the UK - which is why I'm asking about US law.

[cmarshall]

6 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Are you claiming that photographic evidence of Prince Andrew and this girl having sex exists?  I very much doubt that. Mere photos of them together would not be accepted as evidence that an assault took place - not where the test is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. If the test was 'Probability' there is a very small chance that such photos would be accepted.

 

Talking purely with regard to UK law (which is why I'm asked about US law), if a jury was found to have reached a guilty verdict based on probability would be dismissed and their verdict refused under judicial direction.  Such cases have occurred in the UK where judges have failed to make such directions and in the vast majority of those cases, winning an appeal is almost a certainty.

 

'He's guilty and she will win in court if it ever gets to a trial' do you have some secret evidence on which to base your statement?

 

Please stick to matters of law not opinion - I have no opinion in this matter as there is, as far as I know, no admissable evidence.  In the UK we don't convict people on opinons and even though I'm not familiar with US law, I very much doubt they do either.

 

If a court convicts on the basis of a young girl simply claiming someone sexually assaulted her 20 years ago - we will be in a very sad and indeed, dangerous place.

 

Without direct evidence, I doubt this case will go forward, let alone succeed.

I don't know whether video tapes exist of the Windsor lad's sexual activity, but it is known that Epstein's multiple residences were wired for covert filming of bedrooms and bathrooms, including his New York townhouse where Windsor spent four days telling Epstein that he would have to cut off his relationship with him;

 

Are your reading skills not up to snuff any more?  As I already explained "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the standard that applies to jury decisions in a civil suit.  Giuffre is bringing a civil suit against Windsor.  Ergo, the jury will convict Windsor even if the evidence presented does not meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" as long as it does meet the standard of a preponderance of evidence.  Get it?

 

Who the hell are you to tell me when I can express an opinion and when I cannot?  

[KhaoYai]

10 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Are your reading skills not up to snuff any more? 

It didn't take you long to descend into petty snubs did it?  My reading skills?  Perhaps yours would be more applicable - I have asked you to provide the basis of your claim that a lower standard of evidence would be applicable.

 

10 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Who the hell are you to tell me when I can express an opinion and when I cannot?  

I am the person who started this thread and I was very clear that it was about the legal aspects of this matter. If you wish to start a thread claiming Prince Andrew is a paedophile and stating he is guilty without evidence - please feel free to do so.

[KhaoYai]

5 minutes ago, Havenstreet1940 said:

I am very surprised that the Moderators have allowed you to publish such an allegation in your first paragraph,line one.     Do you have substantial evidence,   if not you shouldbe be carefu with your printed words,

Already reported - thanks.

[cmarshall]

8 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

The test in the UK is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  I only spent 1 year on law at University but that is one thing I learned for sure.

 

Can you steer me to the basis of your claim that 'the preponderance of evidence' would apply in the US? Its not a basis I've heard of.

 

Further, I'm fully aware that the case is being brought under civil law but again, not all civil cases are based on 'probability' in the UK - which is why I'm asking about US law.

1.  Although I am 100 per cent certain of the standards for jury decisions in US civil cases, I am not your research assistant.

 

2.  You are not correct as to the standards that apply to civil cases in the UK, at least according to the opinion of Mr. Gordon Exall, Barrister, King's Chamber, Leeds who here is quoting from a 1996 speech of Lord Nichols of Birkenhead, one of the Law Lords at the time.  The text is taken from "Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure" by Mr. Exall, which establishes the relevance to the present discussion even if the quote itself references criminal procedure:

 

15. The correct approach to the standard of proof and the nature of proof required in the case of grave allegations is to be found in the speech of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in In re H (Minors) [1996] AC 563 at 586-587:

“The balance of probability standard means that the court is satisfied an event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. When assessing the probabilities the court will have in mind as a factor, to whatever extent is appropriate in the particular case, that the more serious the allegation the less likely it is that the event occurred and, hence, the stronger should be the evidence before the court concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability. Fraud is usually less likely than negligence. Deliberate physical injury is usually less likely than accidental physical injury. A stepfather is usually less likely to have repeatedly raped and had non-consensual oral sex with his under age stepdaughter than on some occasion to have lost his temper and slapped her. Built into the preponderance of probability standard is a generous degree of flexibility in respect of the seriousness of the allegation.

https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2015/09/02/the-lying-witness-the-approach-of-the-civil-courts/

 

I don't think you are familiar enough with the laws to either country to make further discussion worthwhile.

 

[Kwasaki]

Like I posted previous I think Andrews accuser is after a gravy train,  and get interviewed on TV over involving the Royal family again it's seems like the Americans like this kind of thing. 

[Jai Dee]

A post containing a troll allegation has been edited and replies removed.

[KhaoYai]

12 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

I don't think you are familiar enough with the laws to either country to make further discussion worthwhile.

I am big enough to accept when I am wrong and it would appear that I am in this case - although its not always quite as clear cut as you might think.

 

It is quite common for cases that have been decided on evidence standards of lower courts to be be succesfully defended at appeal and convictions quashed.

 

I find it strange though, that someone who claims to know that law would state that someone is guilty without sight of any evidence.  None of the evidence you have quoted so far is directly related to the assault the girl is claiming.  Photos exist of the girl and the Prince standing together - what does that establish? There may be other links of contact between them but I have not heard of any evidence of any sexual activity.  That is probably because it does not exist and could very well be the reason why the case is being brought in a civil court rather than it being a criminal case.

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Like I posted previous I think Andrews accuser is after a gravy train,  and get interviewed on TV over involving the Royal family again it's seems like the Americans like this kind of thing. 

Andrew has not much credibility at all and if this happened then let him pay. But this is a civil case so yes its about money as they can't hand out jail time.

 

Like cmmarshal stated, and what is the case in so many criminal cases its all about probability. So those pictures and what happened with girls Epstein supplied all weigh in. It does not matter that there is no video evidence or direct witnesses other then him and her. Its not as if every murder / rape is caught on video or that there is DNA evidence. Its an accumulation of evidence all pointing the same way then they just judge how likely it is that it happened VS not.

 

So the pictures prove he knew her and met her, something he denied (poof there goes his credibility). The pattern of abuse of men with woman supplied by Epstein is also established. Then in the end its how much credibility is given to her and him. He has already damaged his (there is is a reason he is called randy andy) with denying even meeting her. While she because of the pics has more credibility. 

 

Anyway its a civil case so burden of proof is less as in a criminal case. But what I read about this is that its highly likely he will settle out of court as this will be to embarrassing for the royals. That is at least what is written about in the papers i read. 

 

My personal opinion is that she was forced given all the proof with other girls and what Epstein and his friends did. Plus of course the madam who also confirms this. So why would Andrew be any different.

[KhaoYai]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

So the pictures prove he knew her and met her, something he denied (poof there goes his credibility).

On the face of it, I would agree with you on that to a certain extent.  However, in court that would be explored in depth. I think what he said was that he had no recollection of 'meeting that young lady' - he had already been presented with photos of himself posing with the girl.  I don't think it would be too difficult for the Prince's lawyers to put that point forward

 

Because he is a Royal its not unreasonable for any of us to jump to the conclusion that he must remember meeting her.  But, think about it - can you remember every girl you ever met? Every occasion where you were photographed with others?  I certainly can't - not from 20 years ago. 

 

The memory can be jogged when a photo is presented but even that is not always the case. Case in point - a friend recently sent me a photo where I am playing the drums at some gig or other about 30 years ago (I was standing in for an injured drummer supposedly). I can't remember playing with that band, the venue, the clothes I was wearing or anything at all about that night. The photo was a complete surprise.

 

It must be remembered that we are talking about Royalty - celebrity status.  Attending parties, concerts, meeting people and being photographed with them is an almost everyday occurrence.  The Prince's lawyers should not have much difficulty is presenting the point that he meets thousands of people at hundreds of events, he cannot be expected to remember all of them.

[Kwasaki]

28 minutes ago, robblok said:

Andrew has not much credibility at all and if this happened then let him pay. But this is a civil case so yes its about money as they can't hand out jail time.

 

Like cmmarshal stated, and what is the case in so many criminal cases its all about probability. So those pictures and what happened with girls Epstein supplied all weigh in. It does not matter that there is no video evidence or direct witnesses other then him and her. Its not as if every murder / rape is caught on video or that there is DNA evidence. Its an accumulation of evidence all pointing the same way then they just judge how likely it is that it happened VS not.

 

So the pictures prove he knew her and met her, something he denied (poof there goes his credibility). The pattern of abuse of men with woman supplied by Epstein is also established. Then in the end its how much credibility is given to her and him. He has already damaged his (there is is a reason he is called randy andy) with denying even meeting her. While she because of the pics has more credibility. 

 

Anyway its a civil case so burden of proof is less as in a criminal case. But what I read about this is that its highly likely he will settle out of court as this will be to embarrassing for the royals. That is at least what is written about in the papers i read. 

 

My personal opinion is that she was forced given all the proof with other girls and what Epstein and his friends did. Plus of course the madam who also confirms this. So why would Andrew be any different.

And pictures cannot be tampered with of course, go ahead and make your judgement, I will not make judgement because I do not know the real facts of the case. 

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

On the face of it, I would agree with you on that to a certain extent.  However, in court that would be explored in depth. I think what he said was that he had no recollection of 'meeting that young lady' - he had already been presented with photos of himself posing with the girl.  I don't think it would be too difficult for the Prince's lawyers to put that point forward

 

Because he is a Royal its not unreasonable for any of us to jump to the conclusion that he must remember meeting her.  But, think about it - can you remember every girl you ever met? Every occasion where you were photographed with others?  I certainly can't - not from 20 years ago. 

 

The memory can be jogged when a photo is presented but even that is not always the case. Case in point - a friend recently sent me a photo where I am playing the drums at some gig or other about 30 years ago (I was standing in for an injured drummer supposedly). I can't remember playing with that band, the venue, the clothes I was wearing or anything at all about that night. The photo was a complete surprise.

 

It must be remembered that we are talking about Royalty - celebrity status.  Attending parties, concerts, meeting people and being photographed with them is an almost everyday occurrence.  The Prince's lawyers should not have much difficulty is presenting the point that he meets thousands of people at hundreds of events, he cannot be expected to remember all of them.

Not sure how much of this case you know. But you do know that in the interview he had about the picture he still denied it even said it was possible faked. I mean saying you don't remember is one thing, but saying its faked is a different story all together. Not many believed the interview.

 

And you saying he has problems remembering while he said that that day he was with his daughter eating pizza. So at one hand your making a case for his lapsing memory while he at the other hand says that he could remember that day. 

 

Anyway I think its now proven that Andrew was with her in a private residence in London so not a party like you said but something far more private something that would stay longer in the memory. Plus that Ghislaine Maxwell is in the picture too. Its also known that Andrew was a friend of Epstein. 

 

So now its established that Andrew met her in a private residence where Ghislaine Maxwell was too. We know the pattern of behavior of Epstein and many of his friends so now its up to the judges to see who they think has the best story. If Ghislain Maxwell testifies then Andrew might be in trouble. 

 

But many still think Andrew will just settle out of court as this could damage his reputation even more.

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

And pictures cannot be tampered with of course, go ahead and make your judgement, I will not make judgement because I do not know the real facts of the case. 

Pictures can indeed be faked, good thing 3 people were in the picture. 1 the alleged victim, 2 the prince, 3 the Ghislaine Maxwell. So if the other 2 say the pic is real then Andrew will have a hard time disputing it. Plus I am sure there are people who can confirm the validity of pictures experts enough. Im sure if it goes to trial experts will look at the picture but again if Ghislaine Maxwell says that Andrew was there combined with this pic it makes Andrew look less credible. 

 

Lets wait and see, I think he is guilty or at least should know that something was wrong. But its up to the judges to make a judgement (if it ever goes to court and is not settled outside of court).

 

 

[couchpotato]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

Not sure how much of this case you know. But you do know that in the interview he had about the picture he still denied it even said it was possible faked. I mean saying you don't remember is one thing, but saying its faked is a different story all together. Not many believed the interview.

 

And you saying he has problems remembering while he said that that day he was with his daughter eating pizza. So at one hand your making a case for his lapsing memory while he at the other hand says that he could remember that day. 

 

Anyway I think its now proven that Andrew was with her in a private residence in London so not a party like you said but something far more private something that would stay longer in the memory. Plus that Ghislaine Maxwell is in the picture too. Its also known that Andrew was a friend of Epstein. 

 

So now its established that Andrew met her in a private residence where Ghislaine Maxwell was too. We know the pattern of behavior of Epstein and many of his friends so now its up to the judges to see who they think has the best story. If Ghislain Maxwell testifies then Andrew might be in trouble. 

 

But many still think Andrew will just settle out of court as this could damage his reputation even more.

And the worst thing is, he couldn't remember what topping was on the pizza.????

[Kwasaki]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Pictures can indeed be faked, good thing 3 people were in the picture. 1 the alleged victim, 2 the prince, 3 the Ghislaine Maxwell. So if the other 2 say the pic is real then Andrew will have a hard time disputing it. Plus I am sure there are people who can confirm the validity of pictures experts enough. Im sure if it goes to trial experts will look at the picture but again if Ghislaine Maxwell says that Andrew was there combined with this pic it makes Andrew look less credible. 

 

Lets wait and see, I think he is guilty or at least should know that something was wrong. But its up to the judges to make a judgement (if it ever goes to court and is not settled outside of court).

 

 

Well let's hope we will see the truth come out but I doubt it somehow.

Too late down the line to try and get a gravy train. 

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, KhaoYai said:

I am big enough to accept when I am wrong and it would appear that I am in this case - although its not always quite as clear cut as you might think.

 

It is quite common for cases that have been decided on evidence standards of lower courts to be be succesfully defended at appeal and convictions quashed.

 

I find it strange though, that someone who claims to know that law would state that someone is guilty without sight of any evidence.  None of the evidence you have quoted so far is directly related to the assault the girl is claiming.  Photos exist of the girl and the Prince standing together - what does that establish? There may be other links of contact between them but I have not heard of any evidence of any sexual activity.  That is probably because it does not exist and could very well be the reason why the case is being brought in a civil court rather than it being a criminal case.

You have fundamental misconceptions about the law and the courts in Anglo-Saxon tradition.

 

1.  While the decisions of a court, whether by a judge or a jury, are subject to reversal upon successful appeal, the standards themselves are certainly not.  In US criminal cases and I expect in the UK also, criminal cases are only decided on the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" never any other standard.  The standards we are discussing here are the standards in the minds of the jurors or of the judge, if a jury trial were to be waived.  (There are evidentiary standards for all court cases, but those have no application to the mind of the jury which is what we are discussing.)   So, for instance the jury in the Giuffre v. Windsor case, if such a case ever comes to trial, can decide to believe the accusations of Giuffre absent any other evidence, simply because they view her as more believable than him.  As long as the jurors agree that they do believe that Giuffre's sole testimony meets the standard of a "preponderance of evidence" then the conviction will be the decision of the court.  In all cases criminal and civil where the decision is based wholly or substantially upon testimony of witnesses and defendants the jury simply chooses whom to believe.  Indeed, that is their duty.

 

2.  While a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to the presumption of innocence, that concept has no applicability to civil cases which do not decide guilt or innocence.  The language that the jury in the Giuffre v. Windsor case will use in announcing their decision will be "we find for the plaintiff" or "we find for the defendant," rather than "guilty" or "not guilty."  If they decide for the plaintiff it will establish that the defendant has injured the plaintiff for which redress must be made, not that he has broken any law, even if he has.

 

3.  Even if the case under discussion were a criminal case to which the defendant was entitled to the presumption of innocence, that stricture would apply only to the court itself, which is to say the judge, the jury, and the officers of the court, not including the prosecution which certainly does not presume that he is innocent.  By tradition elected officials who are not officers of the court are expected not to express a public opinion as to his guilt or innocence by tradition.  They can do so without breaking any law and sometimes do.

 

4.  Therefore there are no circumstances under which any ordinary citizen is legally or even morally obliged to regard the defendant in any case, whether civil or criminal, as innocent with or without evidence of any kind.  I am fully entitled to regard the Windsor boy as guilty as claimed even if I hadn't seen him lying so unconvincingly to Emily Maitlis, for instance.   

 

5.  I don't know why Giuffre brought a civil case, but the lower burden of proof is the usual reason.  For example, O. J. Simpson who murdered his wife and another person was acquitted of the crimes.  Subsequently, the families of the two victims brought a civil suit for wrongful death against Simpson, which they won, because of the lower burden of proof.  

 

6.  Giuffre's case is being handled pro bono by David Boies, one of the most eminent and capable American trial lawyers.  If Windsor takes the stand in his own defense which he will have to do if he presents any defense at all, he will face a cross examination a lot tougher than Emily Maitlis delivered even if her grilling was nevertheless enough to cost Windsor his "job."  If he does not defend himself he will be tried in absentia and a decision will be rendered.  If Giuffre prevails, assets of the defendant in the US could be seized to satisfy the judgment.  

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Well let's hope we will see the truth come out but I doubt it somehow.

Too late down the line to try and get a gravy train. 

The truth will come out if it makes it to court, this is a civil case and many papers have suggested that Andrew will probably pay her off and will be done with it. If that happens nothing will come to court nobody will know the truth then we can only draw our own conclusions. 

 

Im not that interested in royals but just read a few times about this case in the papers. Epstein was a big case and his connection to Andrew is undeniably (even Andrew does not deny it). So that makes me think that there is a big chance its true. The guy does have a nickname implying he likes to play around. Combine that with his friendship with Epstein i find this case quite likely to be true. 

 

Will see wont lose any sleep over this that is for sure.

[KhaoYai]

18 minutes ago, robblok said:

Anyway I think its now proven that Andrew was with her in a private residence in London so not a party like you said but something far more private something that would stay longer in the memory. Plus that Ghislaine Maxwell is in the picture too. Its also known that Andrew was a friend of Epstein. 

OK, I was trying to be polite but let's put it a different way. Can you remember every girl you had sex with?  I certainly can't. I appreciate that some have sexual relationships with just a few people whereas others have been with a lot.  I don't know which category Prince Andrew falls into.

 

In the case of the allegations of sexual assault that took place in London - the girl met the Prince in a Hi-So nightclub in London and then went back to a house (Maxwell's I think) where she claims to have had sex with him. Does that sound like assault to you or something that happens every night all over the country?  It certainly did in my clubbing days.

 

I didn't say he met her at a party by the way - not that it changes anything.

[KhaoYai]

8 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

You have fundamental misconceptions about the law and the courts in Anglo-Saxon tradition.

I do not agree.

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

OK, I was trying to be polite but let's put it a different way. Can you remember every girl you had sex with?  I certainly can't. I appreciate that some have sexual relationships with just a few people whereas others have been with a lot.  I don't know which category Prince Andrew falls into.

 

In the case of the allegations of sexual assault that took place in London - the girl met the Prince in a Hi-So nightclub in London and then went back to a house (Maxwell's I think) where she claims to have had sex with him. Does that sound like assault to you or something that happens every night all over the country?  It certainly did in my clubbing days.

 

I didn't say he met her at a party by the way - not that it changes anything.

I certainly don't remember every girl or every picture taken. However if  im shown a picture it would probably jog my memory. Andrew had a long time to think and talk about the picture and still denied it. He even said it could be false. 

 

Now your turn, if you appear on a picture and a friend of yours too and that friend says it was you on the picture do you still say its a fake (talking about the 3rd person on the pic Epsteins GF). 

 

I think you don't know much about the cases of Epstein if you think it was a common assault. It usually was not it was men in power using their power not physical power to force woman into sex. That seems to be the modus operandi. Why do you think that after the Epstein case so many men became worried because all of a sudden things that were often considered normal to them like using power to get to a staf member / waitress instead of real rape became a problem too.

 

Lets just wait and see, my money is on the prince to buy her off.

 

Personally i have a low opinion of him. Not sure if you know how hard it was just to serve him a paper for the court case. He was using employees to avoid getting the letter about the court case. I mean that is just wrong and he is a royal so shows me a lot about what kind of guy he is. If you need to resort to underhand tactics to avoid court cases then your not a good guy in my book. 

[KhaoYai]

OK, I guess it was naive of me to expect this thread to remain about the legal context and to refrain from passing an opinion so I'll show my colours and throw this into the pot:

 

None of us know the facts on this case and very few, if any, will have had full access to the Epstein case. With that in mind, the best any of us can do is to form an opinion based on what we do know.  However, we should also be aware that the media has an agenda and is therefore more likely to publicise matters that support that agenda - in other words, the news is slanted and biased towards sensationalism so we should be careful with that.

 

I do have an opinion but that opinion is not on the Prince's guilt or innocence because I have no evidence, and as far as I know, neither does the court, of the events that took place between Prince Andrew and the girl.  I do though, have an opinion on the overall concept that has brought about this casse.

 

Realating purely to the girl known at the time as Virginia Roberts. Roberts was stated as being 17 at the time she was photographed standing with Prince Andrew but in all, fairness, if it was stated that she was 21, it would be entirely credible. We are told this girl was 'trafficked' - flown around the world to attend parties and events and have sex with celebrities and other such hi-so's.  . Flown around the world in a private jet by the way.  It would appear that she was not handcuffed at any time or forced to do anything.  By her own admission she had sex with Prince Andrew on 3 occasions, each at different locations yet now she claims it was assault?

 

I'll word this delicately but is it not entirely possible that this girl was actually taking part in the world's oldest profession?  Living the high life, attending the best clubs, restaurants etc. etc. and getting paid for it?  It then takes her 20 years to make her claim that she was sexually assaulted.  If she'd been assaulted, why did she go back for more?  Why did she agree to go back to a house with the Prince after visiting a nightclub of her own volition? Was she kidnapped at the club, bundled into the back of a car and taken to the house? I know what I think.

 

In my opinion there is only one motive behind these charges and that is to make money.

 

During my teen years I had an on/off relationship with a girl who went off, supposedly to work on a cruise ship.  I didn't see her for almost 20 years until I arrived at Changi airport in Singapore one day and someone called my name. To cut a long story short we spent a day together drinking and catching up.  We were close enough from the past for her to talk quite frankly to me - it even seemed as if she was glad to be able to speak freely about what she had been doing.  She had not joined a cruise ship at all, she'd spent a large part of the last 20 years doing exactly what I suspect the girl in this case was doing - nobody forced her, trafficked her etc. etc. When she got older and became 'less in demand' she married one of her clients and moved to Singapore.  It happens and according to me ex gf, there are agencies all over the world that provide such services for those that can afford it.

 

I would state that in no way do I condone sex with monors, sexual assault, rape, sex trafficing or any other such activity but I think there is a very big difference between consensual sex and sexual assault.

 

Would Virginia Giuffre (Roberts) be making the same claims if she'd slept with you or I 3 times?