Ghislaine Maxwell found guilty

[TorquayFan]

Higgot - with due respect, you have very definite views but I wonder why you dismiss other thoughts so emphatically.

 

We or I, may surmise that Andrew first had 'union' with 'Giuffre' when she was 17 and that was in the UK where the age of consent is normally 16. He visits a Friend and meets this young 'lady' who wants to go dancing with him at Tramp and apparently reports later that she was delighted to sleep with him. Not much unusual in that ?

 

There is apparently some question that if money was changing hands, the age of consent would be 18. But Andrew sleeps with a Friend of a Friend, he may or may not know that money was directly involved in that event and probably didn't have to 'shell out' himself.

 

So arguably the 'relationship' is established legally and then continues in another territory where the age of consent is 16. I wonder what the legal position is,  that relationship having already being sexually established in a 'legal' location ? There must be thousands of couples in the USA who first 'joined' legally in Countries where the consent age was lower, but continued on arriving in the USA. I wonder what their position is ? I think that is relevant.

 

This was a savvy young Lady, drinking and dancing the high life at Tramp and elsewhere, enjoying the glamour, riches and excitement of the scene, and having fun with a handsome older fella, reportedly proud to sleep with him later, a fine 'catch' in fact. We don't know if or how any money passed to her as a direct result of that meet but there's no evidence yet that Andrew was involved in that directly or not.

 

I make no case for Andrew and I'm not condemning your 'victim' as such. But I don't understand your implacable position. Of course, Andrew at present cannot argue the 'case' above as he has so far denied that any such events occurred. 

 

Edited January 16, 2022 by TorquayFan
I can't get it right first time LOL

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, TorquayFan said:

Higgot - with due respect, you have very definite views but I wonder why you dismiss other thoughts so emphatically.

 

We or I, may surmise that Andrew first had 'union' with 'Giuffre' when she was 17 and that was in the UK where the age of consent is normally 16. He visits a Friend and meets this young 'lady' who wants to go dancing with him at Tramp and apparently reports later that she was delighted to sleep with him. Not much unusual in that ?

 

There is apparently some question that if money was changing hands, the age of consent would be 18. But Andrew sleeps with a Friend of a Friend, he may or may not know that money was directly involved in that event and probably didn't have to 'shell out' himself.

 

So arguably the 'relationship' is established legally and then continues in another territory where the age of consent is 16. I wonder what the legal position is,  that relationship having already being sexually established in a 'legal' location ? There must be thousands of couples in the USA who first 'joined' legally in Countries where the consent age was lower, but continued on arriving in the USA. I wonder what their position is ? I think that is relevant.

 

This was a savvy young Lady, drinking and dancing the high life at Tramp and elsewhere, enjoying the glamour, riches and excitement of the scene, and having fun with a handsome older fella, reportedly proud to sleep with him later, a fine 'catch' in fact. We don't know if or how any money passed to her as a direct result of that meet but there's no evidence yet that Andrew was involved in that directly or not.

 

I make no case for Andrew and I'm not condemning your 'victim' as such. But I don't understand your implacable position. Of course, Andrew at present cannot argue the 'case' above as he has so far denied that any such events occurred. 

 

She’s an American Citizen and at the time of being trafficked for sex with Andrew Windsor and others was a minor under US law.

The US like the UK extends the jurisdiction of its courts globally where sex crimes involving their citizens are involved, either as perpetrator or victim.

 

The US court has jurisdiction. It is US law the court considers not UK law. 

 

A minor cannot consent to sex with an adult, an adult performing any sex act with a minor is a crime.

Paying the minor in cash or in kind does not make the minor complicit in the, the minor is not competent in law to consent.

 

All that aside, this is a civil case that will be settled on whether or not it can be reasonably demonstrated that the allegations against Andrew are true or not.

 

It also appears from statements made by Giuffre’s legal team that she is not going to settle out of court.

 

I think it’s fair to say, Andrew’s not feeling the love right now.

 

(With all due respect and all that).

 

[TorquayFan]

OK thanks Higgot.

 

Moving on, I was amazed this morning to see Andrew's Lawyers are now discussing a 'false memory' defence - I don't see them getting very far with that.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, TorquayFan said:

OK thanks Higgot.

 

Moving on, I was amazed this morning to see Andrew's Lawyers are now discussing a 'false memory' defence - I don't see them getting very far with that.

It’s his mother I feel sorry for. 
 

I genuinely do.

[seedy]

22 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s his mother I feel sorry for. 
 

I genuinely do.

Poor Baby -

The Royal family recently published its annual books of accounts for the year 2020-21, providing a fascinating insight into the regal life of the English royalty. The net worth of Queen Elizabeth II is $600 million, as per Celebrity Net Worth. Now the question is: where does she get the money from?

The Queen receives an annual lump sum, a single payment by the government called the Sovereign Grant. As per the latest account disclosures, this amount stood at 86.3 million pounds for 2020.

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/queen-elizabeth-ii-net-worth-where-does-the-money-come-from-how-is-it-spent-7087301.html

[BritManToo]

23 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The US like the UK extends the jurisdiction of its courts globally where sex crimes involving their citizens are involved, either as perpetrator or victim.

They do today ....... but they didn't then.

[BobBKK]

I have some sympathy for her. She's been thrown under the bus as Epstein is dead. I have little sympathy for those poor virgins who sold their bodies willingly for $$$ and even got big pay outs later.  I don't much like Andrew and if he did what they say it was foolish but I don't see it as a huge sin.