Royal drama
-
@booboo said in Royal drama:
@majorrage said in Royal drama:
Andy has settled!
Guilty as fuck.
On the balance of probabilities I reckon.
But conversely why would she chuck in the likelihood of "proving" her claims in court (and getting a metric fuck tonne of money), for his guilt to remain speculation although for what is likely to be a good old fashioned Imperial Fuck Ton of money?
You start to wonder at the motives.
If her lawyer thought she had a good chance to win, why would she not go through with it to get non-material satisfaction? Maybe she got offered what the case would have likely settled for, and is spared the personal upheaval of a trial
-
@mikethesnow said in Royal drama:
She likes living
đź‘Ť
Although I suspect if she was going to be knocked off it would have happened before now.
-
@booboo said in Royal drama:
@mikethesnow said in Royal drama:
She likes living
đź‘Ť
Although I suspect if she was going to be knocked off it would have happened before now.
I suppose she isn't planning a trip to Paris anytime soon?
-
@majorrage said in Royal drama:
Andy has settled!
Guilty as fuck.
Paying all her legal fees. $10m to her charity + a sum to her.
Clearly Andrew Windsor really didn't want to be cross-examined under oath.
Dirty scumbag must be stripped of all his titles and honours.
Part of the settlement might be that he will testify against Clinton and others.
-
His advisors really fucked up on this IMO.
Once that picture emerged he should have just gone "yes, I did meet her and things happened. I checked that she was of legal age and there was no indication from either her or anyone else that she was not acting of her own free will. I am happy to contribute in a manner that may help her due to my unknowing participation in this event."
Everyone knew he liked young girls but he could claim that he made sure they were of legal age and willing participants. That photo certainly appears to back that up.
Some embarrassment for sure but nothing illegal. He instead chose to make up a pile of horseshit about the Woking Pizza Express and not being able to sweat which backed him into this corner.
-
From the FT:
Jon Oakley, a partner at London law firm Simkins, called the settlement “the best of the bad options available” to the royal. “For some time it has been clear that this was only ever going to end badly for Prince Andrew unless he settled,” he said.
Anna Rothwell, a lawyer at Corker Binning, said the BBC interview had created a “wealth of material” that Giuffre’s lawyers, David Boies and Sigrid McCawley, would have been able to use against him during cross-examination.
-
@crucial said in Royal drama:
His advisors really fucked up on this IMO.
Once that picture emerged he should have just gone "yes, I did meet her and things happened. I checked that she was of legal age and there was no indication from either her or anyone else that she was not acting of her own free will. I am happy to contribute in a manner that may help her due to my unknowing participation in this event."
Everyone knew he liked young girls but he could claim that he made sure they were of legal age and willing participants. That photo certainly appears to back that up.
Some embarrassment for sure but nothing illegal. He instead chose to make up a pile of horseshit about the Woking Pizza Express and not being able to sweat which backed him into this corner.
Yeah, I totally agree. But you can bre sure as shit he took a fuck ton of "advice" from lawyers who have quite a few reasons to believe his pockets were deep and thus didn't give him the advice which was best for him.
To be honest, when ever these things are resolved by a settlement, it immediately casts doubt both ways in a pretty deep manner. If what did was really that bad, then surely she would want him behind bars, no? Why would you accept money, it just doesn't add up to me.
It looks like me like he did the dirty with her, but not as part of any sex-ring scam. The photo backs that up. There's a lot to be said about coming clean and being honest, when you didn't knowingly do anything wrong.
-
@tim said in Royal drama:
From the FT:
Jon Oakley, a partner at London law firm Simkins, called the settlement “the best of the bad options available” to the royal. “For some time it has been clear that this was only ever going to end badly for Prince Andrew unless he settled,” he said.
Anna Rothwell, a lawyer at Corker Binning, said the BBC interview had created a “wealth of material” that Giuffre’s lawyers, David Boies and Sigrid McCawley, would have been able to use against him during cross-examination.
Comments from lawyers about the opposition lawyers and how the best option was to go down a lawyer produced settlement. Which doesn't harm the reputation of either lawyer.
Ever get the feeling this case isn't really about what went on / didn't go on? And just about lawyers?
-
@majorrage said in Royal drama:
@crucial said in Royal drama:
His advisors really fucked up on this IMO.
Once that picture emerged he should have just gone "yes, I did meet her and things happened. I checked that she was of legal age and there was no indication from either her or anyone else that she was not acting of her own free will. I am happy to contribute in a manner that may help her due to my unknowing participation in this event."
Everyone knew he liked young girls but he could claim that he made sure they were of legal age and willing participants. That photo certainly appears to back that up.
Some embarrassment for sure but nothing illegal. He instead chose to make up a pile of horseshit about the Woking Pizza Express and not being able to sweat which backed him into this corner.
Yeah, I totally agree. But you can bre sure as shit he took a fuck ton of "advice" from lawyers who have quite a few reasons to believe his pockets were deep and thus didn't give him the advice which was best for him.
To be honest, when ever these things are resolved by a settlement, it immediately casts doubt both ways in a pretty deep manner. If what did was really that bad, then surely she would want him behind bars, no? Why would you accept money, it just doesn't add up to me.
It looks like me like he did the dirty with her, but not as part of any sex-ring scam. The photo backs that up. There's a lot to be said about coming clean and being honest, when you didn't knowingly do anything wrong.
I can recall the papers saying he did that interview on TV against his advice. If true he was a fool
-
A settlement doesn't imply guilt, merely a recognition that on the burden of proof, both sides believe there's an unacceptable prospect that you may lose.
Whether he likes younger women is neither here nor there to me, it's whether he knew or ought to have known that she was underage and or trafficked.
Regardless his reputation is irrevocably harmed.
-
@antipodean said in Royal drama:
Whether he likes younger women is neither here nor there to me, it's whether he knew or ought to have known that she was underage and or trafficked.
Partying on the reg with Epstein isn't a good sign on that concern!
-
@tim said in Royal drama:
@antipodean said in Royal drama:
Whether he likes younger women is neither here nor there to me, it's whether he knew or ought to have known that she was underage and or trafficked.
Partying on the reg with Epstein isn't a good sign on that concern!
For mine, visiting him after his release from prison is at best a "terrible misjudgement".
-
@canefan said in Royal drama:
If true he was a fool
The fact that Andrew is a fool has been incontrovertible for at least 40 years.
What wasn't certain, but has been proven by this sorry mess is that the chap is also a bounder and a cad! What ho.
-
@antipodean said in Royal drama:
A settlement doesn't imply guilt, merely a recognition that on the burden of proof, both sides believe there's an unacceptable prospect that you may lose.
Whether he likes younger women is neither here nor there to me, it's whether he knew or ought to have known that she was underage and or trafficked.
Regardless his reputation is irrevocably harmed.
The girl may not have wanted to be cross examined in court either. This guy was never going to jail, but he's been ruined and she's been paid and has no court costs.
Pretty much a win at this point.
-
@kirwan I think I also read the orginal photo was "lost" , whether legitimate lost, stolen etc I dont know, but I believe Andrew's defence was also going to target the authenticity of that photo. Therefore I dont know how much of her defence relied on producing the actual orginal. If that is accurate her lawyers may have suggested to settle..
-
Things is that she wasn't underage (despite what everyone jokes about). She was over the age of consent and (from the photo) looking like she was enjoying the attention.
This should all have been about whether he was party to the trafficking. Did he know about coercion? -
@crucial said in Royal drama:
Things is that she wasn't underage (despite what everyone jokes about). She was over the age of consent
In which State? I'm fairly certain that was the key construct.
-
@antipodean said in Royal drama:
@crucial said in Royal drama:
Things is that she wasn't underage (despite what everyone jokes about). She was over the age of consent
In which State? I'm fairly certain that was the key construct.
The State of the United Kingdom.