Prince Andrew settles out of court.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

If he holds to his word about not remembering he ever met her then he could not "know" he would lose. There has to be more than his word against hers. Even civil trials demand more evidence than that.

 

 

I referred not to the verdict, but to the outcome re the public perception. Did you not comprehend what "Win or lose in court he has already lost in the court of social media as posts on this thread prove" means?

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by thaibeachlovers

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I referred not to the verdict, but to the outcome re the public perception. Did you not comprehend what "Win or lose in court he has already lost in the court of social media as posts on this thread prove" means?

Perhaps you only read the first sentence before replying. Try reading the entire post.

1. You clipped your own quote which was relevant to my reply.

 

2. He hasn't only lost in the court of social media, he has lost in the court of public opinion as a whole, at least in the majority.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Where did I say he is innocent? I wasn't in the room and neither was anyone posting on here to know.

However, I have that old fashioned idea that one isn't guilty until PROVEN guilty. Lots of opinions being bandied about, but IMO no evidence except hearsay, and social media <deleted>. Associating with a criminal doesn't mean one has carried out illegal acts, and I suspect a financial motive for the plaintiff.

Innocent until proven guilty is a principal very rightly applied within the justice system, personal and public opinions are not bound by this principle.

 

I can think of a number of public and or otherwise famous individuals who were accused of crimes, often heinous crimes, who died or took their own life before being convicted.

 

I’ll not take the discussion off topic by naming any of them, but I’m sure we can all think of at least one famous personality who was alleged to have committed heinous crimes, who died before ever being charged, never found guilty but who nobody in their right mind would claim was innocent.

 

People make up their own minds on guilt and innocence, and for a public figure like Andrew public opinion matters.

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Innocent until proven guilty is a principal very rightly applied within the justice system, personal and public opinions are not bound by this principle.

 

I can think of a number of public and or otherwise famous individuals who were accused of crimes, often heinous crimes, who died or took their own life before being convicted.

 

I’ll not take the discussion off topic by naming any of them, but I’m sure we can all think of at least o e famous personality who was alleged to have committed heinous crimes, who died before ever being charged, never found guilty but who nobody in their right mind would claim was innocent.

 

People make up their own minds on guilt and innocence, and for a public figure like Andrew public opinion matters.

Isn't that what I said already, but not in so many words?

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Isn't that what I said already, but not in so many words?

Not quite.

 

You fail to accept that public opinion is a very valid and important aspect of this case.

 

Public opinion cannot be dismissed by the observation that Andrew was neither charged nor found guilty.

 

As per the example(s) I suggest you consider.

[cmarshall]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Innocent until proven guilty is a principal very rightly applied within the justice system, personal and public opinions are not bound by this principle.

 

Quite correct.  This point is seldom understood.  Other than certain members of the court such as the judge, the jurors, and bailiffs, no one else is under any obligation to treat anyone accused of a crime as innocent until proven guilty.

 

However, in the civil case under consideration, no criminal charge has been laid on the Windsor lad.  Instead, he had been accused by a plaintiff of committing a tort upon her for which she was claiming the right to be paid for damages.  So, virtually none of the restrictions that apply to criminal cases have any bearing on the civil case.

 

Of course, he ought to have been charged with a crime at the time, but Epstein knew how to skate.

[CharlieH]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not quite.

 

You fail to accept that public opinion is a very valid and important aspect of this case.

 

Public opinion cannot be dismissed by the observation that Andrew was neither charged nor found guilty.

 

As per the example(s) I suggest you consider.

Agreed, and I believe it was that "public opinion" that led the Palace to remove the various titles etc as it was damaging to the family Even though it was only an allegation and not a charged crime.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

Agreed, and I believe it was that "public opinion" that led the Palace to remove the various titles etc as it was damaging to the family Even though it was only an allegation and not a charged crime.

Correct, public opinion matters, it matters very much more to people and institutions that rely on public support.

 

[FritsSikkink]

20 hours ago, giddyup said:

Not in the UK.

It didn't happen there

[FritsSikkink]

21 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

So funny.  She was 17, she was not underage for consent for sex.   

 

If she had been under the age of consent he, obviously, would have been criminally charged, he wasn't.   It would also have been reported in the media, they would have run with it and loved it!  It wasn't, and the media didn't.

She was in the country where it happened

[Cake Monster]

Apparently, there was a long line outside Buck House, waiting for Andrew to give Money to the people he did not even know.

[PremiumLane]

On 2/18/2022 at 10:35 AM, VocalNeal said:

Lawyers?

So, she shouldn't have taken him to court cos she will have to pay lawyers? Try reading where the money is going, it is not difficult, mate. 

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Innocent until proven guilty is a principal very rightly applied within the justice system, personal and public opinions are not bound by this principle.

 

I can think of a number of public and or otherwise famous individuals who were accused of crimes, often heinous crimes, who died or took their own life before being convicted.

 

I’ll not take the discussion off topic by naming any of them, but I’m sure we can all think of at least one famous personality who was alleged to have committed heinous crimes, who died before ever being charged, never found guilty but who nobody in their right mind would claim was innocent.

 

People make up their own minds on guilt and innocence, and for a public figure like Andrew public opinion matters.

It seems you are one of the people who do their best to bring the public in the direction that they think he is guilty. Or at least it seems you don't even consider he might be innocent.

 

Personally I think we all should (almost) all of the time try to stay with the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. Personally if there is a case from a guy walking away with a bloody knife from a dead body then I think we have a right to assume he is guilty, even if he wasn't until that moment convicted.

But in a case like this were the only evidence seems to be that she said it happened I think it is only fair to treat him as innocent or at least as possible innocent (like: let's look and see what else will come out). Treating him like "we all know he is guilty" because he had this bad friend and he was on that picture and he lied is IMHO not fair.

[Liverpool Lou]

17 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

17 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

And the veracity of that photo was proven when?  Where has it ever been stated that that photo of a photo was taken on the same night.  You've really got to stop making up your own "facts".

It's so much more fun making up the "facts", isn't it?

If you're referring to me, point out exactly where I have invented facts.

[Liverpool Lou]

17 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

17 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

And the veracity of that photo was proven when?  Where has it ever been stated that that photo of a photo was taken on the same night.  You've really got to stop making up your own "facts".

Did you read the BBC article published yesterday and listen to the full interview?

No, I didn't, so tell me what that interview has got to do with the authenticity of the photo which is what I commented about?   

 

Maybe you're one of those who blindly think that everything that is published by the BBC is truthful, factual and incontrovertible, simply because it's "The BBC"?

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems you are one of the people who do their best to bring the public in the direction that they think he is guilty. Or at least it seems you don't even consider he might be innocent.

 

Personally I think we all should (almost) all of the time try to stay with the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. Personally if there is a case from a guy walking away with a bloody knife from a dead body then I think we have a right to assume he is guilty, even if he wasn't until that moment convicted.

But in a case like this were the only evidence seems to be that she said it happened I think it is only fair to treat him as innocent or at least as possible innocent (like: let's look and see what else will come out). Treating him like "we all know he is guilty" because he had this bad friend and he was on that picture and he lied is IMHO not fair.

Well you’re a member of the public, you have your opinion, I have mine.

I doubt my opinion carries much persuasive weight with the general public, though I believe it aligns with that of the majority.

 

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

17 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

...Andrew was fully aware of Giuffre age and being trafficked by communication with Epstein and Maxwell

Yes, he was fully aware that she was of the age of consent for sex (17) in the UK and NY!   

 

"...Andrew was fully aware of Giuffre age and being trafficked..."

That is not correct.  That was an accusation, an assertion, by the plaintiff in her suit, it was not a proven statement of fact.  Nowhere, and at no time, was it proven that he was aware that she was trafficked by third parties.

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, I didn't, so tell me what that interview has got to do with the authenticity of the photo which is what I commented about?   

 

Maybe you're one of those who blindly think that everything that is published by the BBC is truthful, factual and incontrovertible, simply because it's "The BBC"?

Why would I do that, the vid is there to watch I even provided a link then got a response that it was boring and there were better things to do with life...lol consequently I'm not going to comment on the video with somebody who has not watched it.

 

This is also not about the BBC and what I think of them as its the direct words from Andrew that were recorded.

[Liverpool Lou]

6 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

18 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I think that's a charity she set up that will be receiving funds, i.e. it's literally hers, controlled by her.   Make of that what you will!

https://www.speakoutactreclaim.org/about-us

Yes, she's one of two board members according to her site.

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, FritsSikkink said:

22 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

So funny.  She was 17, she was not underage for consent for sex.   

 

If she had been under the age of consent he, obviously, would have been criminally charged, he wasn't.   It would also have been reported in the media, they would have run with it and loved it!  It wasn't, and the media didn't.

She was in the country where it happened

Well, obviously, she was in the country when it happened.  And she was over the age of consent for sex. that's seventeen, in the UK and New York.

[Liverpool Lou]

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

the vid is there to watch I even provided a link then got a response that it was boring and there were better things to do with life

No, you did not get that response from me, get your facts right!

[giddyup]

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, she's one of two board members according to her site.

All I can say is that time has not treated her kindly since the photo with Andrew (supposedly) was taken.

[cleopatra2]

29 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems you are one of the people who do their best to bring the public in the direction that they think he is guilty. Or at least it seems you don't even consider he might be innocent.

 

Personally I think we all should (almost) all of the time try to stay with the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. Personally if there is a case from a guy walking away with a bloody knife from a dead body then I think we have a right to assume he is guilty, even if he wasn't until that moment convicted.

But in a case like this were the only evidence seems to be that she said it happened I think it is only fair to treat him as innocent or at least as possible innocent (like: let's look and see what else will come out). Treating him like "we all know he is guilty" because he had this bad friend and he was on that picture and he lied is IMHO not fair.

The public reach decisions based upon what they see and the individuals action.

Andrew now infamous interview alongside his running around castles avoiding the summons. In addition to the failed attempt to have the case dismissed and ultimately paying a settlement to avoid giving evidence . Is not the actions that would make the public believe he is not guilty.

[ozimoron]

16 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, he was fully aware that she was of the age of consent for sex (17) in the UK and NY!   

 

"...Andrew was fully aware of Giuffre age and being trafficked..."

That is not correct.  That was an accusation, an assertion, by the plaintiff in her suit, it was not a proven statement of fact.  Nowhere, and at no time, was it proven that he was aware that she was trafficked by third parties.

The duke also pledged to "demonstrate his regret for his association" with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by supporting the "fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims".

[cleopatra2]

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Well, obviously, she was in the country when it happened.  And she was over the age of consent for sex. that's seventeen, in the UK and New York.

There is no age of consent for rape.

[Bkk Brian]

9 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, you did not get that response from me, get your facts right!

? I did not say you did. You just need to check a page or 2 back to the poster who did though. Please stop making false claims

Edited February 19, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[CharlieH]

1 hour ago, FritsSikkink said:

It didn't happen there

Incorrect, London was sighted in the allegation.

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The public reach decisions based upon what they see and the individuals action.

Andrew now infamous interview alongside his running around castles avoiding the summons. In addition to the failed attempt to have the case dismissed and ultimately paying a settlement to avoid giving evidence . Is not the actions that would make the public believe he is not guilty.

Not sure if this has been posted previously but according to the Daily Telegraph 10 million went to her and just 2 million went to her charity.

 

"The Daily Telegraph newspaper reported that Andrew was to pay £10 million to Giuffre and £2 million to a charity for victims of sex trafficking."

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220216-prince-andrew-s-settlement-worth-£12-mn-as-anger-mounts-in-uk

[cmarshall]

45 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems you are one of the people who do their best to bring the public in the direction that they think he is guilty. Or at least it seems you don't even consider he might be innocent.

 

Personally I think we all should (almost) all of the time try to stay with the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. Personally if there is a case from a guy walking away with a bloody knife from a dead body then I think we have a right to assume he is guilty, even if he wasn't until that moment convicted.

But in a case like this were the only evidence seems to be that she said it happened I think it is only fair to treat him as innocent or at least as possible innocent (like: let's look and see what else will come out). Treating him like "we all know he is guilty" because he had this bad friend and he was on that picture and he lied is IMHO not fair.

Well, it depends upon the standard that is applied to the decision.  For example we may imagine ourselves as jurors deciding the criminal charge of statutory rape against the little Windsor boy.  If we consider the evidence that is already publicly available, to which might be added further evidence at trial of which we now know nothing, if I were a juror voting to condemn or acquit I would vote to acquit even though I do believe that Dukey Boy did indeed commit the statutory rape upon Virginia Giuffre, because I would have to recognize that the evidence available to date is not sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

However, if the case were a civil case brought by Giuffre against Windsor claiming damages for the tort that he committed upon her of having had sex with her while she was legally too young to give consent, then I would vote in favor of the plaintiff that the tort did occur and that she should receive compensatory damages.  I would so vote, because in the civil case the standard that would apply would be that the tort more likely than not did occur, which is a lower standard that the standard to decide criminal guilt.  

 

But since I am not a juror in either case, I have no obligation whatsoever to regard him as in any way innocent.  I am fully entitled to draw the inference from Windsor's agreement to pay the substantial settlement and to express that his previous accusations against her of lying were without merit do imply his guilt, even though it is a theoretical possibility that public pressure and not guilt have been sufficient to make him amenable to the settlement.  

Edited February 19, 2022 by cmarshall

[puck2]

25 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems you are one of the people who do their best to bring the public in the direction that they think he is guilty. Or at least it seems you don't even consider he might be innocent.

 

Personally I think we all should (almost) all of the time try to stay with the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. Personally if there is a case from a guy walking away with a bloody knife from a dead body then I think we have a right to assume he is guilty, even if he wasn't until that moment convicted.

But in a case like this were the only evidence seems to be that she said it happened I think it is only fair to treat him as innocent or at least as possible innocent (like: let's look and see what else will come out). Treating him like "we all know he is guilty" because he had this bad friend and he was on that picture and he lied is IMHO not fair.

How primitive.  "innocent until proven guilty"  that is a rule of the law, in general okay.

 

But if you have money or the right connections you are able to circumvent "the law", you make "a compromise". Like in this case for many reasons. If he wasn't "forced" by the royal family to make a cpmpromise, a lot of dirt would have appeared on the surface of a clean (?) water. That is the main reason to avoid a juristic process.

 

And even a juristic process isn't ever able to show what really happened. In a juristic process there is one rule: you can only judge about what is proven( not what has really happened). It would be hard to improve what happened in the room. But LOGIC can replace what happened in the room. The logic tells me: why would he (.... hm ...) pay 12 million when nothing happened, but being afraid that Giuffre's details would go to the public.