Prince Andrew - Court

[KhaoYai]

30 minutes ago, robblok said:

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. 

You and me both.  However, this is more about what's going on than who's involved.  When you start looking at what's been made public, the girl's case seems incredible - literally. The Prince's reputation, no matter what our opinions of him may be, has been severely damaged yet its entirely possible that he is not guilty.  The girl is claiming she was trafficked and sexually assaulted - he may well have had sex with her but the assault and trafficking part appears to be pure fantasy.  She will no doubt appear in court, dressed very politely, devoid of make-up etc, etc, - the whole thing will be stage managed.

 

If the girl is motivated by money, she will no doubt have made claims privately before making the matter public.  Clearly any such claims must have been refused.

[mfd101]

Given that La Maxwell is yet to stand trial or otherwise have her time in court, this civil proceeding against Poor Little Andie could well be a preliminary to criminal proceedings that depend on new evidence becoming available (accounts & recordings, travel documents, chauffeurs etc).

 

And all of this in the US. Given that the current plaintiff was apparently not a minor in the UK, at this stage subsequent proceedings in the UK seem unlikely.

[cmarshall]

There is another way to approach this case based on Bayesian probability from mathematics.  Even though Bayesian probability has no applicability to a court of law, it does have probability to the logic of every day life.  Since we here are not in a court of law, we can make use of this particular approach to probability.  Bayesian probability is a way of starting with our expectations from what we know about the world and then adjusting those according to the additional particulars of the case at hand.  So, if you hear hooves galloping down the street out of side, it violates Bayesian probability for you to decide that a zebra is passing by.  We know that horses are far more common than zebras, so our prior expectation is 99%+ it's a horse.  If however, the evening news reports an escape of some zebras from the zoo down the street, then we might adjust our expectation to let's say 60% it's a zebra, not a horse.

 

In the case of accusations of sexual abuse we do have statistics from which we can decide on what our reasonable expectations might be.  Here are some such statistics for the UK and the US.

 

What’s clear is that the spectre of false allegation continues to dog the reporting of sexual violence. There remains a public impression that false allegations are common and that innocent people suffer as the result of being wrongfully accused.

 

The evidence on false allegations fails to support public anxiety that untrue reporting is common. While the statistics on false allegations vary – and refer most often to rape and sexual assault – they are invariably and consistently low. Research for the Home Office suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%.

 

https://www.open.ac.uk/research/news/false-accusations-sexual-violence

 

So, if we knew nothing else other than that a woman accused a man of sexual abuse, then logically there is 94% to a 98% chance that her accusation is true.  Then if we add that the accused man was known to have consorted over a period of years with a convicted pedophile and trafficker of girls even though that man was a member of a family uniquely subject to public censure, that would strengthen our expectation that the accusation is true.  On the other hand it might be that the rate of accusations against rich men by poor women have a higher rate of falsity, I am not aware of any data to support that.

 

Once again, this approach has no application to the law at all.  But I believe her, because false accusations are rare, because Windsor consorted notoriously with a convicted pedophile and trafficker and because she is much more believable than he in interviews.

 

Frankly, I am astonished that anyone here believes him for a moment.  His guilt has always been obvious.  Who has friends who are convicted pedophiles?

Edited September 15, 2021 by cmarshall

[cleopatra2]

37 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

You and me both.  However, this is more about what's going on than who's involved.  When you start looking at what's been made public, the girl's case seems incredible - literally. The Prince's reputation, no matter what our opinions of him may be, has been severely damaged yet its entirely possible that he is not guilty.  The girl is claiming she was trafficked and sexually assaulted - he may well have had sex with her but the assault and trafficking part appears to be pure fantasy.  She will no doubt appear in court, dressed very politely, devoid of make-up etc, etc, - the whole thing will be stage managed.

 

If the girl is motivated by money, she will no doubt have made claims privately before making the matter public.  Clearly any such claims must have been refused.

It was the FBI who initially identified her as one of Epsteins trafficking victims.

Then we have Andrew's lawyer claiming the lawsuit could be unlawful due to a previous settlement. It is difficult to understand how the previous settlement makes this lawsuit possibly unlawful if Andrew is not a participant in the previous settlement. However the previous settlement is sealed so the details are publicly uknown.

Edited September 15, 2021 by cleopatra2

[cmarshall]

Just now, cleopatra2 said:

It was the FBI who initially identified her as one of Epsteins trafficking victims.

Then we have Andrew's lawyer claiming the lawsuit could be unlawful due to a previous settlement. It is difficult to understand how the previous settlement makes this lawsuit possibly unlawful if Andrew is not a participant in the previous settlement. However the previous settlement is sealed so the details are uknown.

If you know the details of the case brought against Epstein in 2005 by the US Attorney for the District of Central Florida, Alex Acosta, then the basis for the lawyer's claim would be clear.   USA Acosta had investigated Epstein and was prepared to charge him with some felonies in federal court.  However, at that point a presumably corrupt deal was reached in which the federal charges were dropped with the condition that they could not be reinstated later and the truly extraordinary provision that none of those who aided and abetted Epstein in the commission of his crimes could ever be charged either.  In return Epstein pleaded guilty to a single minor charge in Florida State court for which he was convicted and spent a year in prison, but only at night while he was permitted to return to his office during the daytime and continue his business.

 

Ghislaine Maxwell's case comes up for trial in November.  It is expected that some rich and famous people will be named by Maxell as having participated in criminal sex abuse with Epstein.

 

The seal of the 2005 case can be broken by a judge at the request of the Department of Justice.  That's unlikely to happen in a civil suit, but could conceivably happen in Maxwell's criminal trial.

[cleopatra2]

16 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

If you know the details of the case brought against Epstein in 2005 by the US Attorney for the District of Central Florida, Alex Acosta, then the basis for the lawyer's claim would be clear.   USA Acosta had investigated Epstein and was prepared to charge him with some felonies in federal court.  However, at that point a presumably corrupt deal was reached in which the federal charges were dropped with the condition that they could not be reinstated later and the truly extraordinary provision that none of those who aided and abetted Epstein in the commission of his crimes could ever be charged either.  In return Epstein pleaded guilty to a single minor charge in Florida State court for which he was convicted and spent a year in prison, but only at night while he was permitted to return to his office during the daytime and continue his business.

 

Ghislaine Maxwell's case comes up for trial in November.  It is expected that some rich and famous people will be named by Maxell as having participated in criminal sex abuse with Epstein.

 

The seal of the 2005 case can be broken by a judge at the request of the Department of Justice.  That's unlikely to happen in a civil suit, but could conceivably happen in Maxwell's criminal trial.

I understand that Andrew's lawyer was referring to a later settlement, not the Epstein 2005 plea deal.

 

2009 Guiffre and Epstein reached a confidential agreement.

Edited September 15, 2021 by cleopatra2

[cmarshall]

14 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I understand that Andrew's lawyer was referring to a later settlement, not the Epstein 2005 plea deal.

Interesting.  I see that sealed agreement was between Giuffre, Epstein, and Alan "I Kept My Underpants On" Dershowitz.  Giuffre's attorney, David Boies, contends that Windsor is not named in the agreement.  So, it's a matter of dispute.

 

Also, interestingly.  Giuffre sued Maxwell in 2015.  They reached an agreement which was also sealed by the court.  However, as a result of a lawsuit by the Miami Herald the seal on that agreement was broken and some, but not all, of the documents released to the public.

 

So, the contents of the corrupt 2005 agreement could also be revealed at some point.

Edited September 15, 2021 by cmarshall

[cleopatra2]

16 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Interesting.  I see that sealed agreement was between Giuffre, Epstein, and Alan "I Kept My Underpants On" Dershowitz.  Giuffre's attorney, David Boies, contends that Windsor is not named in the agreement.  So, it's a matter of dispute.

 

Also, interestingly.  Giuffre sued Maxwell in 2015.  They reached an agreement which was also sealed by the court.  However, as a result of a lawsuit by the Miami Herald the seal on that agreement was broken and some, but not all, of the documents released to the public.

 

So, the contents of the corrupt 2005 agreement could also be revealed at some point.

There is also deposition by Juan Allesi claiming Andrew attended naked pool parties , receiving massages from adolescent girls

[mfd101]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

There is another way to approach this case based on Bayesian probability from mathematics.  Even though Bayesian probability has no applicability to a court of law, it does have probability to the logic of every day life.  Since we here are not in a court of law, we can make use of this particular approach to probability.  Bayesian probability is a way of starting with our expectations from what we know about the world and then adjusting those according to the additional particulars of the case at hand.  So, if you hear hooves galloping down the street out of side, it violates Bayesian probability for you to decide that a zebra is passing by.  We know that horses are far more common than zebras, so our prior expectation is 99%+ it's a horse.  If however, the evening news reports an escape of some zebras from the zoo down the street, then we might adjust our expectation to let's say 60% it's a zebra, not a horse.

 

In the case of accusations of sexual abuse we do have statistics from which we can decide on what our reasonable expectations might be.  Here are some such statistics for the UK and the US.

 

What’s clear is that the spectre of false allegation continues to dog the reporting of sexual violence. There remains a public impression that false allegations are common and that innocent people suffer as the result of being wrongfully accused.

 

The evidence on false allegations fails to support public anxiety that untrue reporting is common. While the statistics on false allegations vary – and refer most often to rape and sexual assault – they are invariably and consistently low. Research for the Home Office suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%.

 

https://www.open.ac.uk/research/news/false-accusations-sexual-violence

 

So, if we knew nothing else other than that a woman accused a man of sexual abuse, then logically there is 94% to a 98% chance that her accusation is true.  Then if we add that the accused man was known to have consorted over a period of years with a convicted pedophile and trafficker of girls even though that man was a member of a family uniquely subject to public censure, that would strengthen our expectation that the accusation is true.  On the other hand it might be that the rate of accusations against rich men by poor women have a higher rate of falsity, I am not aware of any data to support that.

 

Once again, this approach has no application to the law at all.  But I believe her, because false accusations are rare, because Windsor consorted notoriously with a convicted pedophile and trafficker and because she is much more believable than he in interviews.

 

Frankly, I am astonished that anyone here believes him for a moment.  His guilt has always been obvious.  Who has friends who are convicted pedophiles?

Nicely argued.

[KhaoYai]

3 hours ago, cmarshall said:

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.

Are you saying that a judge cannot direct a jury to aquit if they consider a conviction is unsafe?  Cannot advise them as to the strength of the evidence provided?

 

Where you say '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'. Do you accept that the court of appeal can decide whether or not the standard of evidence was met?

 

Its also important to note that in the UK, it is extremely rare for a jury to sit in civil cases.

 

[cleopatra2]

8 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Are you saying that a judge cannot direct a jury to aquit if they consider a conviction is unsafe?  Cannot advise them as to the strength of the evidence provided?

 

Where you say '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'. Do you accept that the court of appeal can decide whether or not the standard of evidence was met?

 

Its also important to note that in the UK, it is extremely rare for a jury to sit in civil cases.

 

I am unsure why you refer to the UK legal system. The case if it comes to trial will be conducted under US jurisdiction

[KhaoYai]

17 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I am unsure why you refer to the UK legal system. The case if it comes to trial will be conducted under US jurisdiction

Because in that particular discussion we were refering to both systems.

[Fab5BKK]

Just 1 general comment:

It takes years of training (and practice) to become a lawyer...

I studied Law for 5 years (International Commercial Law) and have practiced for the last 25 years .

Am I a good lawyer? May be.

Do I master everything about Law (civil, commercial, criminal, etc.)? For sure, no!

[KhaoYai]

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

There is also deposition by Juan Allesi claiming Andrew attended naked pool parties , receiving massages from adolescent girls

Should the case come to court and a conviction achieved based on depositions and statements rather than hard evidence, I would expect that decison to be easily overturned at appeal.

 

In this case, at the moment it appears (nothing has been revealed as yet) that the plaitiff's case is based on her own claims and the only evidence she is able to offer is based on the actions of Epstein and Maxwell.  Just because somebody says something happened does not make it so.  Should a jury (if indeed it is decided by jury) convict based on that I would consider such a decision easy to overturn.  Whereas the Prince's claims that he didn't know the girl may go against him - the girl's case is equally weakened by the fact that the said assaults took place 3 times and on at least one of those occasions it appears she went with the Prince voluntarily.

 

One of the main reasons that rape trials in the UK have a low conviction rate is because they are often based on one word against another. Rape and sexual assault are very difficult to prove but that does not mean they do not take place.

Edited September 15, 2021 by KhaoYai

[cleopatra2]

2 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Should the case come to court and a conviction achieved based on depositions and statements rather than hard evidence, I would expect that decison to be easily overturned at appeal.

 

In this case, at the moment it appears (nothing has been revealed as yet) that the plaitiff's case is based on her own claims and the only evidence she is able to offer is based on the actions of Epstein and Maxwell.  Just because somebody says something happened does not make it so.  Should a jury (if indeed it is decided by jury) convict based on that I would consider such a decision easy to overturn.  Whereas the Prince's claims that he didn't know the girl may go against him - the girl's case is equally weakened by the fact that the said assaults took place 3 times and on at least one of those occasions it appears she went with the Prince voluntarily.

The " she went voluntarily " is not tenable. At the timer of the alleged assaults Roberts has been identified as a victim of sexual grooming and trafficking by Epstein.  

[KhaoYai]

4 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The " she went voluntarily " is not tenable. At the timer of the alleged assaults Roberts has been identified as a victim of sexual grooming and trafficking by Epstein. 

And that makes her firstly go to a nightclub and then back to a house to be assaulted again?  You should talk to my ex who used to work in the same line - she'll tell you how much these girls are groomed.

 

In my opinion there is a very real difference between this girl and those who are genuinely groomed. Why is the Prince not being charged with sexual assault by the US authorities?

[cleopatra2]

7 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

And that makes her firstly go to a nightclub and then back to a house to be assaulted again?  You should talk to my ex who used to work in the same line - she'll tell you how much these girls are groomed.

 

In my opinion there is a very real difference between this girl and those who are genuinely groomed. Why is the Prince not being charged with sexual assault by the US authorities?

it was in 2007 that the FBI who were investigating Epstein spoke to Roberts in Australia as a grooming and trafficking victim. There is flight logs of journeys undertaken on Epstein private jet.

It is somewhat difficult of Andrew to use the defense of she was consenting when he categorically denies such an encounter took place.

[cmarshall]

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

Are you saying that a judge cannot direct a jury to aquit if they consider a conviction is unsafe?  Cannot advise them as to the strength of the evidence provided?

 

Where you say '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'. Do you accept that the court of appeal can decide whether or not the standard of evidence was met?

 

Its also important to note that in the UK, it is extremely rare for a jury to sit in civil cases.

 

As I understand it, directed verdicts are rare and in any case the jury is not bound to follow the direction of the judge.  I think it is outside the scope of the judge's role to advise the jury on the strength of evidence presented.  In the criminal and civil trials at which I served as a juror the judge certainly never gave a hint as to his own opinion of the evidence.  That is the job of the jury to evaluate the evidence.  Must be different if a jury trial is waived by the defendant, which I think is a possibility in this case since an American jury is likely to be hostile to the royalty.

 

But, as I explained before, criminal trials result in a conviction or an acquittal.  Civil cases result in civil judgment.  No decision of the guilt or innocence of anyone occurs.  Either the claims of the plaintiff against the defendant are sustained or they are denied.

 

Giuffre's case against Windsor, if it comes to trial, will be tried in US District Court in Manhattan under the US Civil Code without any reference to the laws or practices of the UK.  That was the point of the American War of Independence, if you recall.

[cmarshall]

Some good news:

 

LONDON — Britain’s High Court agreed on Wednesday to intervene in a sexual assault lawsuit against Prince Andrew, clearing the way for him to answer a legal claim in the United States that he sexually abused a minor while a guest of Jeffrey Epstein.

 

The High Court, which said it was responding to information provided by Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers, agreed to serve the papers on Andrew if the two parties did not work out a way to do so. Andrew has been visiting the queen at Balmoral Castle in Scotland, making that process more complicated.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/nyregion/prince-andrew-epstein-lawsuit.html

[Kwasaki]

15 hours ago, cmarshall said:

Giuffre's case against Windsor, if it comes to trial, will be tried in US District Court in Manhattan under the US Civil Code without any reference to the laws or practices of the UK.  That was the point of the American War of Independence, if you recall.

It's not going to work Andrews legal team will tie the American lawyer up in knots. 

It sounds to me there's only one law for the Americans.

How about they sent that American woman diplomat back to UK that ran over a young man on a motorcycle.

[KhaoYai]

People have said that its most likely that Prince Andrew will settle the matter out of court.  That's probably correct and as a 'damage limitation' measure, it would probably be best for him. I'm not a particular fan of the man but it seems to me that, without evidence to the contrary, all he's guilty of is being a 'lad' - albeit at a higher level than most of us can afford.

 

I don't for one minute believe that Virginia Roberts was 'groomed' - her actions at the time appear pretty voluntary.  If the case does go ahead it may be interesting if the defence to ask to see her bank statements for the time

 

The sad part is that if the case is not heard, we will never get to hear any evidence from either side and as is apparent from comments on this thread, the Prince's reputation is already tarnished by this woman's claims.

 

Groomed?  Sexually assaulted by the same person on 3 separate occasions in 3 different locations. If I tell you its OK to put your hand in a fire, will you put it in 3 times even though you got burned? Sorry, I don't buy it. 

 

As I said in an earlier post, I know someone who worked for an agency that provided 'entertainment' for celebs and the like when she was not much older than Roberts and told me a little of what goes on. Parties for rich Arabs, trips on mega-yachts, picked up by private jets etc. etc. In no way would she ever claim that she was groomed. Dazzled by the money and the high life, misguided perhaps but groomed? No way.

 

All Roberts is doing is having a second bite of the cherry and probably regretting her past choices.

[cmarshall]

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

It's not going to work Andrews legal team will tie the American lawyer up in knots. 

It sounds to me there's only one law for the Americans.

How about they sent that American woman diplomat back to UK that ran over a young man on a motorcycle.

Doesn't look that way to me now that the High Court is going to assure service of notice of the lawsuit.  That's one roadblock out of the way.  Attorney David Boies is a very aggressive lawyer.  The Windsor boy will not want to face an American jury in the "Me Too" era.

 

So, I don't think there will be a trial.  The Windsors will pay through the nose to Virginia Giuffre to make it go away.  Then they'll hide him away in one of their dungeons and we won't see him any more.  He's just a liability now.

[KhaoYai]

10 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

So, I don't think there will be a trial. 

Just as well if the juror's attitude's are anything like yours - you've tried and convicted him already without hearing any evidence.

[Kwasaki]

22 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Doesn't look that way to me now that the High Court is going to assure service of notice of the lawsuit.  That's one roadblock out of the way.  Attorney David Boies is a very aggressive lawyer.  The Windsor boy will not want to face an American jury in the "Me Too" era.

 

So, I don't think there will be a trial.  The Windsors will pay through the nose to Virginia Giuffre to make it go away.  Then they'll hide him away in one of their dungeons and we won't see him any more.  He's just a liability now.

Well I don't agree I wouldn't pay,  so we will just have to see what happens.

[KhaoYai]

23 hours 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.

Regardless of whether the photos are real or not, and on the basis that the Prince did in fact meet Roberts and may be lying about that - how does that prove sexual assault?  If being photographed with a pretty girl can mean facing charges 20 years later, a hell of a lot of us should be worried.

 

That the Prince was associated with Epstein and Maxwell is not in dispute - sorry to repeat this but the crux of this matter is a girl claiming sexual assault by the same person on 3 separate occasions at 3 different locations. Can you not see anything wrong with that?

[DaLa]

2 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

It's not going to work Andrews legal team will tie the American lawyer up in knots. 

It sounds to me there's only one law for the Americans.

How about they sent that American woman diplomat back to UK that ran over a young man on a motorcycle.

The case against Anne Sacoolas wasn’t a private law suit. She was charged with causing death by dangerous driving, a criminal charge for which she (with the backing of the US government) refuses to answer.

 

If the case in the US against Prince Andrew takes place and Ms Giuffre wins, firstly good luck trying to enforce the judgment

 

( https://www.penningtonslaw.com/news-publications/latest-news/2019/transatlantic-litigation-enforcing-us-judgments-in-england-and-wales )

 

and further more he should ignore any settlement proposed. Anne Sacoolas should be placed on an extradition list of as many countries as the UK have a treaty with which I believe is around 116, or 115 if you discount the US.

[cmarshall]

12 minutes ago, DaLa said:

The case against Anne Sacoolas wasn’t a private law suit. She was charged with causing death by dangerous driving, a criminal charge for which she (with the backing of the US government) refuses to answer.

 

If the case in the US against Prince Andrew takes place and Ms Giuffre wins, firstly good luck trying to enforce the judgment

 

( https://www.penningtonslaw.com/news-publications/latest-news/2019/transatlantic-litigation-enforcing-us-judgments-in-england-and-wales )

 

and further more he should ignore any settlement proposed. Anne Sacoolas should be placed on an extradition list of as many countries as the UK have a treaty with which I believe is around 116, or 115 if you discount the US.

Boies is probably researching assets belonging to the Windsors in the US right now in preparation for directing US marshalls to seize them in the event of a civil judgment against the Windsor boy.  However, I doubt that it will get to that point and even if it does and the judgment is never satisfied it won't matter much.  Giuffre's main purpose is revenge against a man who harmed her when she was a child.  The reputational damage that will result from a trial, from a judgment against the royal, from defiance of an American court, and the search for assets to seize, all of which will keep the story on the front pages probably for years is likely to be worth the bother to Giuffre.  

 

Giuffre has all the cards.  No matter what happens the Windsor fellow and his family will lose.  They'll pay.  

[KhaoYai]

I would just like to make one thing clear - as the matter of Epstein and Maxwell has been brought into the frame several times.  I am not disputing the matter of Epstein and Maxwell's alleged 'grooming' here.  It is reported that they have been involved with girls as young as 14 and there appears to be quite a lot of evidence supporting the claims about their activities. Prince Andrew is not facing charges of grooming.

 

As somewhat of an aside, I am disputing is whether or not this particular girl could be considered as 'groomed' - having met Maxwell at the age of 17.  There have been several cases of 'grooming' in the UK in recent years - some quite shocking. In all of those cases the facts and methods used were very different as were the ages.  In my opinion a human being changes considerably between the ages of 14 and 17 - mainly in regard to growing up and taking responsibility.  At 17, Roberts was a young adult in my opinion and should have been fully able to make her own decisions - she should also have been responsible for the consequences.

 

The girl appears to have had a sad and troubled early life, her parents broke up, she'd been molested by a family friend from a very early age and had some involvement with a sex trafficker previously. She'd been a runaway and lived in various foster homes. That would suggest she wanted to be away from the abuse - naturally. The girl seems to have had a horrible time and endured things that no youngster should ever have to - that is beyond dispute.

 

However she seems to have got away from all that when she was re-united with her father at the age of 14.  Her father worked at one of Donald Trumps properties and at 17, he got her a job there.  That is where she met Epstein and Maxwell and its alleged that Epstein cajoled her by telling her he could help her to become a professional masseuse and she could travel the world 'massaging people'. Just a few weeks later she was off around the world - not giving massages but having sex with various hi-so's. 

 

Had she learned nothing from her previous experiences or was it the promise of big dollars and the high life? She seems to have readily turned her back on her dad at the promises. How much responsibility should she take for a decsion made at 17? If she'd actually believed Epstein, could she not have simply refused or quit after the first time and returned to her father?

 

The case, if it goes ahead is not claiming Prince Andrew was responsible for her grooming - the charges are sexual assault.

Edited September 16, 2021 by KhaoYai

[Kwasaki]

37 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

or directing US marshalls to seize them in the event of a civil judgment against the Windsor boy.

Now you are funny, US Marshals have no jurisdiction in UK. 

[DaLa]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

Boies is probably researching assets belonging to the Windsors in the US right now in preparation for directing US marshalls to seize them in the event of a civil judgment against the Windsor boy.  However, I doubt that it will get to that point and even if it does and the judgment is never satisfied it won't matter much.  Giuffre's main purpose is revenge against a man who harmed her when she was a child.  The reputational damage that will result from a trial, from a judgment against the royal, from defiance of an American court, and the search for assets to seize, all of which will keep the story on the front pages probably for years is likely to be worth the bother to Giuffre.  

 

Giuffre has all the cards.  No matter what happens the Windsor fellow and his family will lose.  They'll pay.  

Let me explain my position which simply places lawyers (especially ambulance chasers) below that of royalty; in fact pretty well at the bottom of any barrel.  

 

Nothing like using an appeal to pity in an argument to strengthen your case. This ‘child’ you refer to, 17 year old ‘child’ that apparently passed for 21, knew exactly what territory she was in and never entered a complaint against Prince Andrew at the time. My ex-wife was a school teacher and taught hundreds of post and pre-pubescent young children (girls) and will testify how manipulative and aware of their sexual power they are even at that age. Then they have another 5-7 years to master the art. Once your ‘child’ as you refer to her has been around a few luxuries they are just trading sexual favours.

 

It’s a sad day when a label can be applied to anyone years after an incident when the real victims never get a say. In many other countries this wouldn’t even have raised an eyebrow. US, home to litigation, drink some coffee and then complain it’s too hot. The US where presumably there’s not enough legal work for Lawyers presently so they have to create extra by extending the statute of limitations. It would be interesting to know what terms her lawyers are on or are they involved because of their altruistic values? Why not go back 200 years and look at all the other injustices that took place in history and create even more lucrative work? I look back at when I was younger and there are probably a few women that could claim I abused them, but of course I’m not royalty and I don’t have a pot of money or assets in the US.

 

This is nothing more than a money grab, she obviously didn’t get paid enough originally. Prince Andrew’s reputation is harmed regardless and many Brits are anti-royal. I have no side in this other than what I would consider to be fairness so I sincerely hope he gives her and her lawyers the run round and doesn’t pay a cent. Hopefully Prince Andrew is either withdrawing his US assets or placing them in trust so they can’t be touched.