Prince Andrew not served papers as they were handed to his police security.

wordy said:
So has the Queen paid some of private citizen Andrew’s legal fees?

Because if she has then she’s paid to have a(n alleged) sex offender escape justice.

Imagine how it would’ve looked if one of the Rotherham grooming gangs parents tried to pay the victims off. There’d quite rightly be uproar.
Click to expand...

It's not 'escaping justice' if you've never been convicted - unlike the Rotherham grooming gangs who certainly were.
 
ChroniC said:
I bet its been said in this thread a lot before, but I'm not trawling through OCUK style rants to find it.

What's he actually meant to be guilty of based on the thin evidence I've seen in the tabloids.
She was of legal age in the UK, she was in the UK when the picture was taken, although technically illegally in a nightclub when they met, but surely that justifies that he would have though she was 18 not 17.

None the less aside from her word, which is an embarrassment to the Monarchy, what actual evidence is there that he did anything other than have a picture taken when her at a nightclub. Even if he did "have relations", she was legal and how can anyone prove it wasn't consensual?

Obviously the fact that there is a mountain of evidence against Epstein, does that really mean that the two things instantly become related as trafficking. Seems a bit thin on the ground in a court case.
Click to expand...

All of that is true certainly, however the civil case was launched in the USA where it was alleged he had sex with her as well - and there it would have been sex with a minor due to different age of consent laws.
 
ChroniC said:
I bet its been said in this thread a lot before, but I'm not trawling through OCUK style rants to find it.
[...]
None the less aside from her word, which is an embarrassment to the Monarchy, what actual evidence is there that he did anything other than have a picture taken when her at a nightclub. Even if he did "have relations", she was legal and how can anyone prove it wasn't consensual?
Click to expand...

Well it's a civil case not a criminal one but she wasn't "legal" in 2 out of 3 of the alleged instances in a general sense (NYC and the US Virgin Islands where AFAIK age of consent is 18 not 16).

As far as the UK instance is concerned she was trafficked by Epstein and allegedly paid to sleep with Andrew. While prostitution is legal in the UK AFAIK it isn't legal for people aged under 18 to sell sex and she was 17 at the time. How culpable Andrew was re: that particular incident in terms of criminality I don't know but I guess the argument there was that he was party to that criminal activity + the allegations that he's slept with her when underage in NYC and the US Virgin islands ergo he's caused some harm and is liable for damages.
 
dowie said:
Well it's a civil case not a criminal one but she wasn't "legal" in 2 out of 3 of the alleged instances in a general sense (NYC and the US Virgin Islands where AFAIK age of consent is 18 not 16).
Click to expand...

Not quite right. I posted this many pages back...


Richie said:
The alleged offences took place in the UK, New York and Little St James where the ages of consent are 16, 17 and 18 respectively.

As she is reported to have been at least 17 in all cases, was she legally underage?

In the 3rd case on Little St James, she stated she was around 18 years of age:

In evidence to a Florida court in 2015, Roberts Giuffre wrote: “The third time I had sex with Andy was in an orgy on Epstein’s private island in the US Virgin Islands.

“I was around 18 at the time."
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/07/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-what-you-need-to-know

If that's the case then there was no underage sex unless trafficking can be proven I would have thought.
Click to expand...
 
It's crazy how people are shouting paedophile, criminal and whatever else, total bloodthirsty mob. He's not even guilty of any crime as far as I can see.
 
jsmoke said:
It's crazy how people are shouting paedophile, criminal and whatever else, total bloodthirsty mob. He's not even guilty of any crime as far as I can see.
Click to expand...

The court of public opinion isn't bound by legislation and quite frankly it's impossible to wash the stain of association once people have made their minds up.
 
I mean, if the facts show that he’s a rapist on the balance of probabilities… it’s not as if it’s a win is it. And that’s what he is trying to avoid and has admitted to.
 
even if he'd taken it to court, it's not like he'd miraculously recover his name - equally money is the currency of justice in the usa - something like 85% of civil cases settled out of court according to her lawyer.
UK lord, who was accused of being a paedophile who died recently who had been accused, in police negligence, and cleared after death.
 
jsmoke said:
It's crazy how people are shouting paedophile, criminal and whatever else, total bloodthirsty mob. He's not even guilty of any crime as far as I can see.
Click to expand...
Which is why he's never been charged.
Civil cases can be brought be anyone for anything - for damages. Pay out day.
Don't have assets in the US.
 
wordy said:
Why pay her 12 million then and get the queen to chip in, why not got to court and clear his name?
Click to expand...

1) It would be impossible for him to clear his name, regardless of the court ruling.
2) As I said before:

Angilion said:
It's not that uncommon for a person who is innocent to settle a civil case or even to accept a plea bargain in a criminal case. All that's required is that they don't trust a trial. Given that Prince Andrew is routinely being pre-judged guilty of crimes he hasn't even been accused of [..] he would be completely justified in not trusting a trial.

How, for example, could he prove that he didn't know that a person he had sex with would in later years regret working as a prostitute? He might well not even have known she was working as a prostitute - there's no evidence that he did.

Guilt or innocence is not necessarily relevant to the outcome of a criminal case, let alone a civil case, let alone an out of court settlement. Especially not an out of court settlement, which is mainly about the media and/or legal costs and doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with guilt or innocence.
Click to expand...

He was accused of having sex with a woman much younger than him (he was ~40 at the time) who was from another country. That's all he's actually accused of. Yet people are declaring him guilty of raping children. Despite him not being accused of either rape or child sexual abuse. Under those circumstances it would be silly for him to spend a fortune on legal fees for a highly political trial that has nothing to do with evidence (and which would therefore be a crap shoot on who won) and which would be of no use to him if he won and which would still cost him a fortune if he won.

There are plenty of people in jail in the USA who pled guilty to crimes they didn't commit. It's part of how their legal system works (except in Alaska). It's entirely deliberate - the goal of their criminal justice system is to cut the cost of investigating crimes, to cut the costs of courts and to increase profits for private prison companies. Not to determine guilt or innocence. In comparison to that, an out of court cash settlement with no admission of guilt is trivial.

Also, the £12M figure is made up and who's paying it is unknown.
 
wordy said:
Why pay her 12 million then and get the queen to chip in, why not got to court and clear his name?
Click to expand...

You're oblivious.

The woman has leverage on not only andrew but by extension the queen by the negative publicity and she risks almost nothing.

It's legally acceptable blackmail and the queen has agreed to pay the ransom.

The alternative is prolonged stirring of negative publicity and tossing a coin on the outcome of a civil case.

Being innocent is not a defence.
 
Ahleckz said:
Having sex with someone who is trafficked is rape.
If she was trafficked, he raped her.
Click to expand...
Is that the law or internet law?
Ahleckz said:
Having sex with someone who is trafficked is rape.
If she was trafficked, he raped her.
Click to expand...
Is it?
Is that the law in the the US or UK? happy for you to quote it if it is. Probably why we disagree in this thread. If it is then fair cop.
If it’s not then…


Wow I can’t quote for toffee.
 
wordy said:
Why pay her 12 million then and get the queen to chip in, why not got to court and clear his name?
Click to expand...

He literally offered to do that. She then decided she wanted a settlement instead. A courtroom showdown might have been complicated for Giuffre, since her ex-boyfriend has accused her of trafficking girls for Epstein, and that line of questioning seems to be a thread she'd prefer not to unravel.

the shadow said:
:eek::eek::eek::eek: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ns-friend-Jean-Luc-Brunel-prison-suicide.html
Click to expand...

Sometimes you have to take out the garbage, sometimes the garbage takes itself out for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom