Prince Andrew - Court

[KhaoYai]

16 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I understand Andrew could have avoided the litigation if he had chosen to co-operate with the FBI requests.

What does a criminal investigation agency have to do with a civil money grab?

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 9/14/2021 at 11:29 PM, Kwasaki said:

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.

What she has done is to be part of legal actions against the alleged main perpetrators, Epstein and Maxwell since 2005. The first time she and her lawyers talked about Prince Andrew's involvement was in 2011, so she didn't wait 20 years to talk to lawyers about it.

 

She's actually been trying to pursue claims against him since 2014 but was never able to get a case into court before.

 

But one of the main reasons she's brought this particular legal action now, and why it seems to be progressing further is because she was now able to file under New York's Child Victims Act, which only came into effect in 2019.

[KhaoYai]

32 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

She's actually been trying to pursue claims against him since 2014 but was never able to get a case into court before.

The girl is alleging that she was sexually assaulted, has she reported that to the police?

[cleopatra2]

44 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

What does a criminal investigation agency have to do with a civil money grab?

The FBI issued formal MLA for Andrew to co operate and answer questions. So far he has declined. Whilst the FBI cannot extradite or subpoena Andrew, the next stage was for the lawyers to force the issue via a civil litigation.

 

 

[cleopatra2]

1 minute ago, KhaoYai said:

The girl is alleging that she was sexually assaulted, has she reported that to the police?

You do realize that there is a witness placing Andrew in the nightclub 

[KhaoYai]

1 minute ago, cleopatra2 said:

You do realize that there is a witness placing Andrew in the nightclub 

I'd be surprised if there wasn't hundreds - how is that evidence of sexual assault?

[GroveHillWanderer]

4 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

I believe she is claiming that one of the THREE occasions where she was 'assualted'  was the US Virgin islands.

I'm not sure what your point is. The age of consent on the USVI is 18. If there was any sexual contact there between Giuffre and Prince Andrew when she was 17 then it was automatically illegal.

[KhaoYai]

3 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The FBI issued formal MLA for Andrew to co operate and answer questions. So far he has declined. Whilst the FBI cannot extradite or subpoena Andrew, the next stage was for the lawyers to force the issue via a civil litigation.

The Prince has publicly stated on several occaisons that he will co-operate with any appropriate law enforcement agency.  Can you evidence his refusal to talk to the FBI?  That would go against what's been reported in the UK.

 

On the one hand, you could say that Andrew is stupid for being difficult - for example in the matter of the service of documents. However, in his position, with the media baying for a scandal and as can be seen in this thread, being jugded guilty before any trial either civil or criminal has taken place, I'm not so sure I'd be keen on coming forward.  He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

[KhaoYai]

1 minute ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

I'm not sure what your point is. The age of consent on the USVI is 18. If there was any sexual contact there between Giuffre and Prince Andrew when she was 17 then it was automatically illegal.

Then you need to read the associated posts.

[KhaoYai]

13 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

the next stage was for the lawyers to force the issue via a civil litigation.

I'd suggest that's the only stage the lawyers are interested in.

[cleopatra2]

12 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

I'd be surprised if there wasn't hundreds - how is that evidence of sexual assault?

it diminishes Andrew's alibi that he was at home.

[cleopatra2]

5 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

The Prince has publicly stated on several occaisons that he will co-operate with any appropriate law enforcement agency.  Can you evidence his refusal to talk to the FBI?  That would go against what's been reported in the UK.

 

On the one hand, you could say that Andrew is stupid for being difficult - for example in the matter of the service of documents. However, in his position, with the media baying for a scandal and as can be seen in this thread, being jugded guilty before any trial either civil or criminal has taken place, I'm not so sure I'd be keen on coming forward.  He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

FBI have confirmed that Andrew has not responded.

Andrew claims to be unaware of Epstein's activities and just an innocent association . IF this is correct why would he refuse to co operate and answer any questions.

[KhaoYai]

8 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

FBI have confirmed that Andrew has not responded.

I don't doubt you but I can't find any links to that - perhaps you can?

 

8 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Andrew claims to be unaware of Epstein's activities and just an innocent association . IF this is correct why would he refuse to co operate and answer any questions.

Trial by media?

 

At the worst, Epstein provided the Prince with the company of a young lady, a young lady that appeared older and I believe lied about her age.  Millions of men have received such services and slept with girls much younger than themselves - that includes me but I can't remember ever asking someone for their birth certificate.  If a girl appears old enough I don't question them.

Edited September 18, 2021 by KhaoYai

[cmarshall]

3 hours ago, DaLa said:

Thank you for admitting your error on that point ;  perhaps you'll also admit that you are disappointed to learn that he can't be charged with a criminal offence.

There's no error.  Yes, I believe that Windsor commit the crime of statutory rape against Giuffre.  No, I don't think he can be charged now for that crime in New York State, because the statute of limitations has by now precluded that option.   What is difficult to understand about that?

[KhaoYai]

11 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

it diminishes Andrew's alibi that he was at home.

I would remind you that the Prince has denied knowledge of meeting Virginia Roberts.  I can't remember every girl I've met either.  Yes its possible that he's lying but in my opinion he doesn't need an alibi. Even if there is video footage of all 3 occasions where its claimed he met Roberts, it doesn't prove sexual assault.

[Liverpool Lou]

On 9/15/2021 at 7:12 AM, cmarshall said:

He's guilty

How do you know?

[alacrity]

Don't know if the allegations are true or not. If they are, I'll be very disappointed, with a person I have held in high regard. And yes, I've met the guy. Initially during 'corporate' on R12. And on occason, in later years.

 

Always struck me (and proved to be) a guy that could be depended on, in tough stuations. Some-one you would prefer to be 'the man next to you'.

 

Innocent until proven guilty.

[cleopatra2]

4 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

I would remind you that the Prince has denied knowledge of meeting Virginia Roberts.  I can't remember every girl I've met either.  Yes its possible that he's lying but in my opinion he doesn't need an alibi. Even if there is video footage of all 3 occasions where its claimed he met Roberts, it doesn't prove sexual assault.

He claimed on the evening he was at home and he specifically remembers this.

A witness has placed Andrew, Maxwell and Epstein in the nightclub.

Being in the nightclub supports Roberts version of events.

 

 

[KhaoYai]

Nobody here has any knowledge of whether Prince Andrew met Virginia Roberts (Giuffre). Neither do they have any evidence that the girl was 'trafficked' to him or that he had sexual contact with her. Yet there are people here claiming that he's guilty and judging him.

 

This is a classic example of why these investigations/trials should stay private until proven. The media just love this and as any grown up with a modicum of intelligence should know - the media are not to be trusted.

 

Should evidence surface that Roberts has been lying for example. the media will turn on her a portray her as a 'Prostitute to the Rich & Famous' in an instant.

[KhaoYai]

8 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Being in the nightclub supports Roberts version of events.

What, that he raped her? And then went on to rape her again? <deleted> - open your eyes!

 

Jeez, if meeting someone in a night club, taking them somewhere and having sex with them is a crime, millions of guys ought to go hand themselves in now!

 

If he raped her - a very serious crime, why is he not up on rape charges?

Edited September 18, 2021 by KhaoYai

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, KhaoYai said:

Nobody here has any knowledge of whether Prince Andrew met Virginia Roberts (Giuffre). Neither do they have any evidence that the girl was 'trafficked' to him or that he had sexual contact with her. Yet there are people here claiming that he's guilty and judging him.

 

This is a classic example of why these investigations/trials should stay private until proven. The media just love this and as any grown up with a modicum of intelligence should know - the media are not to be trusted.

 

Should evidence surface that Roberts has been lying for example. the media will turn on her a portray her as a 'Prostitute to the Rich & Famous' in an instant.

Was it consensual?

If it was not I would expect she would have screamed from the rooftops the first time it happened.

Now she is claiming it happened three times?

Its a joke. She knew what she was doing. She was doing what most bar girls in Thailand do.

Holding her nose while an older guy pumped her. Its the oldest trade in the world.

Do I like Prince Andrew? No hes a dick.

Do I believe he raped her? No she is what she is.

[KhaoYai]

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

Was it consensual?

If it was not I would expect she would have screamed from the rooftops the first time it happened.

Now she is claiming it happened three times?

Its a joke. She knew what she was doing. She was doing what most bar girls in Thailand do.

Holding her nose while an older guy pumped her. Its the oldest trade in the world.

Do I like Prince Andrew? No hes a dick.

Do I believe he raped her? No she is what she is.

Here, Here.

[KhaoYai]

Just now, KhaoYai said:

She knew what she was doing. She was doing what most bar girls in Thailand do.

Holding her nose while an older guy pumped her. Its the oldest trade in the world.

Yes - doing her job and extremely unlikely to say 'by the way, before I take my bra off I must tell you I'm only 17'!!!

[KhaoYai]

Seriously, does this girl look underage guys? Would you ask for her birth certificate? Would a Prince, extremely familiar with the antics of the media allow this photo to have been taken if he thought it could be used against him in the future? Seems very unlikely.

 

Given that you are supposed to be 18 to enter a UK nightclub, it seems the door-staff thought she was old enough too.

 

Edited September 18, 2021 by KhaoYai

[cleopatra2]

13 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

What, that he raped her? And then went on to rape her again? <deleted> - open your eyes!

 

Jeez, if meeting someone in a night club, taking them somewhere and having sex with them is a crime, millions of guys ought to go hand themselves in now!

 

If he raped her - a very serious crime, why is he not up on rape charges?

it establishes that Andrew is not being truthful. if Andrew needs to fabricate an alibi for the night in question the question is why.

 

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

On 9/15/2021 at 10:05 PM, cleopatra2 said:

It is somewhat difficult of Andrew to use the defense of she was consenting

Obviously, as he has denied that her allegations are factual.   And,  he has never said that "she was consenting"!

[KhaoYai]

1 minute ago, cleopatra2 said:

it establishes that Andrew is not being truthful. if Andrew needs to fabricate an alibi for the night in question the question is why.

Andrew's lawyers will simply claim that his recollection of events is different and that it is unreasonable to expect someone to be clear on events 20 years ago. It still doesn't prove rape - that's an entirely different matter.  That would be fairly easy to establish in a UK court - but god knows what could happen in the US where court cases sometimes seem to be like soap operas.

[WhiteBuffaloATM]

Uñtimate Sanction : Diplomatic Immunity. No Case to Answer.

Best PR though to get Case Dismissed first, on grounds of Procedute, Insufficient Evidence, Elapsed Time. Putting the Queens Son on Trial, in a Foreign Country to boot, like a common criminal, just aint gonna happen.

In this or any case. Like putting the UK itself on trial …..impossible.

 

[KhaoYai]

7 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

it establishes that Andrew is not being truthful. if Andrew needs to fabricate an alibi for the night in question the question is why.

I have no idea if the man is lying or not but given that he's a member of the Royal Family, do you think he's going to admit to sleeping with a hooker?

[Liverpool Lou]

On 9/16/2021 at 5:04 PM, DaLa said:

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.

Someone else who doesn't understand how extradition treaties and requests work!