enfieldspares Posted January 8, 2022 Report Share Posted January 8, 2022 On 04/01/2022 at 12:10, Gordon R said: Andrew can't have it both ways. Either he is not covered by the agreement or he is, which begs the question as to why he was covered. Hard to imagine that he thinks he is covered in an agreement with a person he never met. A bit odd. I trust justice will be done later today. Yes. Like the often quoted when learning law Godalming Wigwam Murder! Don't deny (in this case ownership of a distinct knife) something if the prosecution can then produce witnesses to refute that denial but instead be vague or, what Sangret didn't do admit it but say that it was at a different time. If Sangret has said "Yes it was mine but I lost it at an earlier time." Then he may well have been acquited. So Prince Andrew's best defence is probably to say "Yes I met X, Y or Z but only in passing and at an earlier time." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Sangret Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 8, 2022 Report Share Posted January 8, 2022 55 minutes ago, ditchman said: been reported that "very soon".....could be a week to a month ......... Appreciated, thanks 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted January 8, 2022 Report Share Posted January 8, 2022 If he did its no more than aristocracy have done for centuries rumping the peasants.and no doubt it is still going on today.if he did not then there should be proof as his every move is shadowed by security so any dates she throws out can be easily checked.but either way this young lady is no doubt going to èarn a vast amount of money from the various magazines and newspapers for her story because that is what this is really all about.remember monica kept a dress with a stain on it for many years and then became very rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westward Posted January 8, 2022 Report Share Posted January 8, 2022 4 hours ago, Walker570 said: come on, would just any 17year old do that without speaking to parents and again where were her parents at the time? My guess is that parenting was generally pretty slack much as with the girls who get groomed over here. Epstein's girls appear to have been mostly harvested from West Palm Beach which is very much the wrong side of the tracks. Virginia seems to have bragged about this stuff with comments like "I got to sleep with Prince Andrew", and she probably made better money from being in Epstein's pay than she'd have got at at McDonalds. I believe there's also evidence that she (and other girls) groomed some of the girls herself, which may explain why she didn't testify against Maxwell. Like many, she may well have come to regret her choices in later life, but underage is underage and still a crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted January 8, 2022 Report Share Posted January 8, 2022 39 minutes ago, Westward said: I believe there's also evidence that she (and other girls) groomed some of the girls herself If this is the case, then I hope once she gets her settlement money/story money, then those that she groomed, bring a case against her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clangerman Posted January 8, 2022 Report Share Posted January 8, 2022 need to stop trying to blacken this girls name on here to justify sick boys actions or people will think we are also weirdos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkedUp Posted January 8, 2022 Report Share Posted January 8, 2022 That ship has sailed my friend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted January 8, 2022 Report Share Posted January 8, 2022 (edited) 5 minutes ago, clangerman said: need to stop trying to blacken this girls name on here to justify sick boys actions or people will think we are also weirdos If aimed at me, I'm not blackening her name, if she groomed other girls then she is also a guilty party and I hope she gets her comeuppance. The same as I hope Andrew gets his, as well as all involved in this disgusting crime. Edited January 8, 2022 by Newbie to this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clangerman Posted January 8, 2022 Report Share Posted January 8, 2022 4 minutes ago, Newbie to this said: If aimed at me, I'm not blackening her name, if she groomed other girls then she is also a guilty party and I hope she gets her comeuppance. The same as I hope Andrew gets his, as well as all involved in this disgusting crime. not aimed at anyone just a observation rather not look like a weirdo supporting that sort of behaviour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westward Posted January 9, 2022 Report Share Posted January 9, 2022 17 hours ago, Newbie to this said: If this is the case, then I hope once she gets her settlement money/story money, then those that she groomed, bring a case against her. A couple of years ago there was a TV news documentary about Epstein and several women mentioned how when they were themselves being abused, Maxwell/Epstein encouraged them to find other underage girls who would like to make some extra cash. One of them is a lady called Carolyn Andriano, who gave evidence against Maxwell at the trial, and is now saying that when she was 14, the then 17 year old Giuffre talked her into visiting Epstein at his mansion to give him a massage for which she was paid $300. More here: SARAH VINE: Prince Andrew's an oaf - but his accuser has questions to answer too | Daily Mail Online Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 9, 2022 Report Share Posted January 9, 2022 24 minutes ago, Westward said: A couple of years ago there was a TV news documentary about Epstein and several women mentioned how when they were themselves being abused, Maxwell/Epstein encouraged them to find other underage girls who would like to make some extra cash. One of them is a lady called Carolyn Andriano, who gave evidence against Maxwell at the trial, and is now saying that when she was 14, the then 17 year old Giuffre talked her into visiting Epstein at his mansion to give him a massage for which she was paid $300. More here: SARAH VINE: Prince Andrew's an oaf - but his accuser has questions to answer too | Daily Mail Online It’s all getting rather interesting isn’t it. It’s going to make one helluva film! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westward Posted January 9, 2022 Report Share Posted January 9, 2022 20 minutes ago, Scully said: It’s all getting rather interesting isn’t it. It’s going to make one helluva film! Agreed. And I think there's more to come out because there has to be a reason why Giuffre wasn't called by the prosecution to give evidence at the trial. At a guess I'd say it's because they didn't want to risk her being cross examined by the defence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted January 9, 2022 Report Share Posted January 9, 2022 5 minutes ago, Westward said: Agreed. And I think there's more to come out because there has to be a reason why Giuffre wasn't called by the prosecution to give evidence at the trial. At a guess I'd say it's because they didn't want to risk her being cross examined by the defence. I believe she has made a number of 'out of court' settlements with both Epstein (2009) and Maxwell (2015). If you read here - overall, she has kept lawyers very busy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Giuffre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amateur Posted January 9, 2022 Report Share Posted January 9, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 9, 2022 Report Share Posted January 9, 2022 27 minutes ago, amateur said: 😂😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discobob Posted January 12, 2022 Report Share Posted January 12, 2022 News Just In... Prince Andrew will be going to caught as the Judge has thrown out his appeals against it going ahead Looks like he will need a new suit and will be known as T. Accused Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moondoggy Posted January 12, 2022 Report Share Posted January 12, 2022 Can’t we do a swap, Prince Andrew for Anne Sacoolas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted January 12, 2022 Report Share Posted January 12, 2022 joking aside ........this might finish the old queen off.......with all the carp she has dealt with ....straw that broke the camels back springs to mind........ bet charlie boy is spitting blood and feathers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted January 12, 2022 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2022 1 hour ago, discobob said: News Just In... Prince Andrew will be going to caught as the Judge has thrown out his appeals against it going ahead Looks like he will need a new suit and will be known as T. Accused No, he hasn't been caught yet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 12, 2022 Report Share Posted January 12, 2022 It was reported that his legal team were shocked at the ruling. They must be living on the same planet as Andrew. The three options are:- 1. Settle out of court. Giuffre has said she wants her day in court, but a former New York Prosecutor, who seemd well clued up, said that she was open to a financial settlement. 2. Let the case run and not take part - resulting in a default judgement. 3. Commit hari kari and actually appear in court, albeit by zoom. I can't think of any sane person who would advocate that. In any other year, I would have wagered money on number two, but given the Queen's 70 year reign, few will want this dragging on to the autumn. My current money is on a "no admission" settlement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted January 12, 2022 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2022 Whilst I agree with your points Gordon, if he pays her off he might as well admit his guilt after all the shenanigans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 12, 2022 Report Share Posted January 12, 2022 There is no good option for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted January 12, 2022 Report Share Posted January 12, 2022 2 minutes ago, Gordon R said: It was reported that his legal team were shocked at the ruling. They must be living on the same planet as Andrew. The three options are:- 1. Settle out of court. Giuffre has said she wants her day in court, but a former New York Prosecutor, who seemd well clued up, said that she was open to a financial settlement. 2. Let the case run and not take part - resulting in a default judgement. 3. Commit hari kari and actually appear in court, albeit by zoom. I can't think of any sane person who would advocate that. In any other year, I would have wagered money on number two, but given the Queen's 70 year reign, few will want this dragging on to the autumn. My current money is on a "no admission" settlement. HHhhahhahhahahhhaa............and therefore admits the claim indirectly...............he is utterly screwd he wont be delving into his dressing up box anymore😪 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted January 12, 2022 Report Share Posted January 12, 2022 4 hours ago, discobob said: News Just In... Prince Andrew will be going to caught as the Judge has thrown out his appeals against it going ahead Looks like he will need a new suit and will be known as T. Accused He will not see the inside of a court room. There may be a case heard, but he will not attend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westward Posted January 13, 2022 Report Share Posted January 13, 2022 Ever since Weinstein and the "MeToo" campaign and now Epstein/Maxwell everything is stacked against Andrew. Now I have no sympathy with him, he's a fool, a waster, a long term philanderer and probably a liar too but as said above, Giuffre was no innocent child. She was 17, and whilst she may have been a victim to some extent, she was also a willing participant. Everyone's read the terms of the document Giuffre signed and it's solidly set in stone precisely to prevent this kind of civil claim, therefore it's pretty clear that, because of the prevailing attitudes, the judge has had to be "flexible" in his interpretation of the law to allow the case to proceed. There would have been a massive outcry if he'd found in Andrew's favour. Since the threshold of proof in a civil suit is much lower than with a criminal case and given current attitudes to sex abuse cases, Andrew has no chance in court but, this is a civil case to be heard in an American court and has no jurisdiction in this country. He can thumb his nose since his reputation is now thoroughly trashed anyway, but his family will surely insist on a settlement and despite Giuffre saying that's not whet she wants, history tends to suggest that's exactly what she does want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.