Prince Andrew Thread 2

[Roussette]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4442126-Prince-Andrew

Here is previous thread.

I've started a new thread because today and tomorrow is crucial as far as the pending civil case.

And I also had a few comments I wanted to say to posters at the end of the last thread, but it ran out.

"The release does not mention Prince Andrew. He did not even know about it,"

What does that mean? PA didn't know about the agreement?

Personally I think it looks like he is guilty as hell, they are doing everything they can to get this thrown out of court, he’s trying to avoid it so hard, from hiding from being served, to jurisdiction, refusing questioning, arguing he’s covered by the agreement etc. and how the queen has effectively cancelled him. An innocent person would have stood up told their story, submitted to questioning and supported immediately. The more he tries to squirm his way out of it, the worse it looks for him.

And don’t get me started on his ludicrous pizza express claim, I don’t believe for one moment if prince Andrew was at pizza express not one person would remember it.

@prh47bridge thank you for explaining- I forget this is a civil claim, law is obviously not my strong point

Storm
I imagine so. He did not know he was covered by a Release agreement.

Would the judge be under any (diplomatic?) pressure to throw the case out? I'm not saying this would happen btw, just wondering

Bluntness
Funnily enough... the body language experts on the carcrash interview seemed to think the Pizza Express thing was quite possibly correct. Of course, they are only commenting on their area of expertise... body language but given that they found 75% of the interview dodgy as hell (possibly lying), I found it interesting that Pizza could well have been on the menu that day.

Of course that would not have stopped him heading out to Tramp nightclub later on and I am amazed there are no protection officer records or any way of proving he never left the house after Pizza. Or records showing he did.

they are doing everything they can to get this thrown out of court

Of course they are. That's normal. It's what competent lawyers would always seek to do if there were grounds for doing so. I expect he has access to competent lawyers

Personally I think it looks like he is guilty as hell, they are doing everything they can to get this thrown out of court, he’s trying to avoid it so hard, from hiding from being served, to jurisdiction, refusing questioning, arguing he’s covered by the agreement etc. and how the queen has effectively cancelled him,

Which is exactly what his US lawyers should be doing. If you can get the case closed down without the uncertainties of a trial, that is what you should do. No matter how innocent you are, there is always a chance that a trial will go against you, particularly in a civil case where the standard of proof required is much lower. It may not be great from a PR perspective, but getting the case thrown out at this stage is much better than going to trial.

An innocent person would have stood up told their story, submitted to questioning and supported immediately.

Andrew's lawyers dispute the claims by the US authorities regarding his co-operation. They say they have emails to show that he has offered to co-operate throughout, but the US authorities have broken their own confidentiality rules and made untrue statements to the press, apparently in an attempt to get Andrew to agree to conditions no lawyer would accept. I don't know who is telling the truth here, but I don't have much faith in the truthfulness of the US authorities. Their criminal justice system permits behaviour by prosecutors and police that is illegal in the UK.

@Courcheval

Reading the US lawyer Lisa Bloom, she seems to think that this agreement won't stop the case continuing. I do hope she's correct.

I do wish they would stop rolling her out on this case. She’s an awful human being - she offered to help Weinstein when the accusations came out against him, stating that she was able to help him refute sexual assault claims because she had defended victims and knew how their minds worked.

She may have issued an apology since this all came out but fact remains she is in it purely for the money/fame and nothing else.

www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/09/she-said-book-weinstein-lisa-bloom/597679/

eu.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2019/09/10/harvey-weinstein-lawyer-lisa-bloom-should-disbarred-rose-mcgowan-says/2273430001/

@Roussette

Storm I imagine so. He did not know he was covered by a Release agreement.

Interesting Rousette, I don't think VG's legal team can categorically say that he didn't know about it, the fact that there is a release agreement in existence has been public knowledge since at least 2019 (obviously not the exact wording of it). I feel sure Gislaine would have told PA about the document's existence before anyone else was aware of it and that if a lawsuit/civil case against him ever came about he'd probably (in her opinion) be covered by it.

There were leaked emails from 2015 between PA and GM where PA said he wanted to talk to GM regarding VG , so I can't imagine he wasn't told about the agreement.

Why was Virginia Roberts accusations not part of the Maxwell trial?

@Malariahilaria

US lawyer on R4 now saying PA will have an uphill battle getting a judge to throw out the case due to the fact that PA would have to admit he thought he was a defendent which isn't where he wants to be.

I was trying to articulate that, in my head, last night, but yes, exactly.

On the one hand, nothing to see here, according to him. But on the other hand 'this protects me. But I don't need protecting because I...' and so on.

@Gilmorehill

Why was Virginia Roberts accusations not part of the Maxwell trial?

I believe because they were focussing on a small number of charges in order to guarantee a conviction. The VG case has more layers to it and the prosecution may have worried that the Jury would become distracted by that.

@Gilmorehill

Why was Virginia Roberts accusations not part of the Maxwell trial?

I understand the prosecutors had concerns about her credibility and were worried that calling her as a witness could undermine their case. I am not saying their concerns were well-founded.

@Vapeyvapevape

There were leaked emails from 2015 between PA and GM where PA said he wanted to talk to GM regarding VG , so I can't imagine he wasn't told about the agreement.

Yes, and if he had nothing to worry about he wouldn't need to know he'd been mentioned, would he? Why would JE or GM tell him royalty is included in the document if he wasn't involved?

I'm not explaining that right, but hopefully you get the gist?

@prh47bridge and thank you

@Curlygirl06 yes exactly. It all makes sense in my head too but comes out a muddle when I try to type it out!

@Lolamento

Who would have thought that PA was so thick to knowingly get himself into this? A Royal, like he did not have much to loose right?

There are armies (literally !!!!) of people whose sole job is to protect the Royal Family. With their lives if needs be. Prince Andrew drove himself to this deserted beach against all advice.

'No' is not a word for Princes, little man

This isn't some accidental slip up - a moments madness (I wonder if the George III defence would fly ?). This is the infinite entitle arrogance of a man who has been bought up in a parallel universe of privilege, wealth and connections.

[quote Vapeyvapevape]@Curlygirl06 yes exactly. It all makes sense in my head too but comes out a muddle when I try to type it out![/quote]
Yes you've got it! Cake and eat it comes to mind!

An innocent person would have stood up told their story, submitted to questioning and supported immediately

US and UK jails (and graveyards) are full of innocent people who thought the same.

If PA had no idea about the contents of the release, why have they petitioned to have it disclosed? They must have had an idea there would be something useful in there.

Like some posters, I'm thinking that this "deal" now made public is actually a velvet lined trap. The only way Prince Andrew can be covered by it, is to show to a court that it was explicitly framed to include him as a named person. "All and any" sounds far to vague for a serious legal document.

That's going to require something more than fine words, I guess ?

Andrews best bet is to - as I've seen a couple of times today - take the fifth. Or rather it would be if this were a criminal case. Apparently it doesn't work in civil cases ?

@Lolamento

Who would have thought that PA was so thick to knowingly get himself into this? A Royal, like he did not have much to loose right?

I think in his world, it’s probably very much a case of he does what he wants and pays people to deal with a problem if one occurs (PR people, lawyers etc). I don’t think he has ever had to worry about the consequences of his actions until now - and he is struggling to deal with the consequences since he’s never had to before. He will be advised to stay very quiet and let the lawyers deal with this, hence the taking no responsibility whatsoever.

Also, this ‘take no responsibility’ approach leaves him the option that if this all goes away (which both he and his lawyers are hoping for), he can state in public that he was following the advice of his legal team throughout.