Royal drama
-
@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.
-
@crucial said in Royal drama:
@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.
How is that relevant?
-
@kirwan said in Royal drama:
@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.
I reckon the opinions you both offered are accurate.
An ordinary bloke from the suburbs wouldn't bugger up his life anywhere near as badly as this knucklehead! Right from the jump, and he has been at it for years - the urger he married, the company he keeps, his failure to capitalise on his good fortune. One can only but imagine how much money has simply run through his fingers.
In centuries past the monarch had a shady looking bloke lurking behind the curtains, a Luca Brasi, stiletto at the ready, to put things right in the public interest. The Americans pulled it off easily enough with Epstein in the gaol in Manhattan. A couple of dozey guards fell asleep as planned, followed the script faithfully, the charges were gradually reduced, the judge thundered about their substandard working conditions and the prosecution dutifully dropped all charges on January 3. The file will have gone missing from the court archives within a couple of days!
As it happened this has gone down the conventional route. They are both on the ran tan - the sheila got her loot, and he got the law off his back - for the moment, she might come back for more. I recall some other similarly involved woman had a prior negotiated agreement with Epstein or the girlfriend / manager and broke it when it suited her.
They are all in the same low underclass, you'd be naive to believe otherwise. They use each other along the way and turn on each other without hesitation. The now innocent looking chunky middle-aged woman, surrounded by a protective detail of lawyers, is as capable as the be-suited aristocrat of coercion. Early in life there is the allure of shiny, sparkly things from a sugar daddy; later on the need for comfortable financial security cuts in.
For our Prince Andrew, who might have been king, the thoughtless, careless, casual rooting has brought his whole life crashing down. One hopes it has been made clear that, for appearances in public, he and his family are to take up position inconspicuously in the back row. He may still not understand why but that does not matter.
-
@antipodean said in Royal drama:
@crucial said in Royal drama:
@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.
How is that relevant?
Because that's where it allegedly happened?
-
@crucial said in Royal drama:
@antipodean said in Royal drama:
@crucial said in Royal drama:
@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.
How is that relevant?
Because that's where it allegedly happened?
Ms Giuffre claimed in court papers in Florida she was forced to have sex with the prince on three occasions - in London, New York and on a private Caribbean island owned by Epstein - between 2001 and 2002, including when she was underage under Florida law.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49411215 -
@antipodean said in Royal drama:
@crucial said in Royal drama:
@antipodean said in Royal drama:
@crucial said in Royal drama:
@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.
How is that relevant?
Because that's where it allegedly happened?
Ms Giuffre claimed in court papers in Florida she was forced to have sex with the prince on three occasions - in London, New York and on a private Caribbean island owned by Epstein - between 2001 and 2002, including when she was underage under Florida law.
So if a young lady from the US of A was to throw herself at me in another country I have to check her state and their laws?
Take your point on the 'three places' though. hat are the ages of consent there?
-
@crucial said in Royal drama:
@antipodean said in Royal drama:
@crucial said in Royal drama:
@antipodean said in Royal drama:
@crucial said in Royal drama:
@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.
How is that relevant?
Because that's where it allegedly happened?
Ms Giuffre claimed in court papers in Florida she was forced to have sex with the prince on three occasions - in London, New York and on a private Caribbean island owned by Epstein - between 2001 and 2002, including when she was underage under Florida law.
So if a young lady from the US of A was to throw herself at me in another country I have to check her state and their laws?
Take your point on the 'three places' though. hat are the ages of consent there?
Because she was trafficked from Florida.
-
@antipodean said in Royal drama:
@crucial said in Royal drama:
@antipodean said in Royal drama:
@crucial said in Royal drama:
@antipodean said in Royal drama:
@crucial said in Royal drama:
@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.
How is that relevant?
Because that's where it allegedly happened?
Ms Giuffre claimed in court papers in Florida she was forced to have sex with the prince on three occasions - in London, New York and on a private Caribbean island owned by Epstein - between 2001 and 2002, including when she was underage under Florida law.
So if a young lady from the US of A was to throw herself at me in another country I have to check her state and their laws?
Take your point on the 'three places' though. hat are the ages of consent there?
Because she was trafficked from Florida.
Ah ok, but wouldn't everything then hinge on whether he knew about she was trafficked. Not saying he didn't but just that would be hard to prove. The only evidence we have is that he was friends with the creeps and they introduced the two.
Still think he fucked this up with denials. Even if she had sex with him in places where she was underage he could claim a prior legal coupling (or some such term) and that she was willing. Pretty sure that the lawyers he can afford would argue that one well.
-
@crucial i am well out of my depth with this so ignore if irrelevant, i dont think it does ride on if he knew or not does it? you buy stolen goods i think you're still in trouble even if you dont know...i could be wrong...or this could just be different to that
-
Bad news for the Windsors continues:
-
@donsteppa said in Royal drama:
Started well but lost the plot.
Room for improvement after third line...
-
@pakman said in Royal drama:
@donsteppa said in Royal drama:
Started well but lost the plot.
Room for improvement after third line...
Ohhhhhhh
The grand old Duke of York
He borrowed 12 million quid
Gave it away to a gal with a squawk
All for something he never did