Royal drama
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.