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.

@AuntMasha

Indeed SerendipityJane, this photograph says it all really…

A complete dick. And the Met Commissioner too.

Quis custodes ipsos custodiet indeed.

@SerendipityJane

The Metropolitan Police reviewed the evidence against PA and announced in October that they will not be taking any action against him. So, however much you may want to see it, there is no chance of a criminal prosecution or jail.

Ah, yes. The Met. I'm not really too convinced by their integrity right now.

In fact, if I were a villain I might consider suing them if they found me innocent, knowing that it's pretty much a headline statement to the opposite.

One thing we've learned these past few months and years is the meaning of "corruption". Looks like we need to learn to live with it too.

Whatever you may think of the Met, there will be no criminal prosecution if they don't believe there is enough evidence to support one. The best you can hope for is a civil case in which, if PA loses, he may have to pay compensation to Virginia Giuffre.

It's clearly been hushed up now, but about a decade ago there was a lot Clinton's trips of the Lolita Jet on the American politic blogs maybe a decade ago

I’d be very surprised if Clinton wasn’t more than just a passing acquaintance. I have posted this image before on another thread, on anyone else’s wall I’d say it’s a bit odd and not to my taste but it’s hanging on Epstein’s wall (at his townhouse property I believe). Bizarre

@SerendipityJane

The Metropolitan Police reviewed the evidence against PA and announced in October that they will not be taking any action against him. So, however much you may want to see it, there is no chance of a criminal prosecution or jail.

Ah, yes. The Met. I'm not really too convinced by their integrity right now.

In fact, if I were a villain I might consider suing them if they found me innocent, knowing that it's pretty much a headline statement to the opposite.

One thing we've learned these past few months and years is the meaning of "corruption". Looks like we need to learn to live with it too.

This was discussed in a separate thread a while ago. As I said at the time, I was not surprised that the Met decided to take no action. There does not appear to be any evidence that would support a prosecution.

If he had sex with VG in London, she was, on her own account, over the age of consent at the time. Indeed, she appears to have been over the age of consent in all the locations where the alleged encounters took place. She emphasises in her lawsuit that she was under 18, that being the age of consent in Florida, but, as none of the alleged encounters appears to have taken place in Florida, that is irrelevant.

Even if she was trafficked and Andrew had sex with her, that is not an offence. It is not an offence to have consensual sex with someone who has been trafficked. It is an offence to pay or offer to pay for sex with someone who has been trafficked, but this was not an offence at the time and, in any case, she has not alleged that he paid or offered to pay.

The only offence that may have been committed is rape, but the allegations in her legal action are sufficiently non-specific to mean that, even if she was willing to give evidence in the UK courts, it would fall some way short of proving beyond reasonable doubt that she did not consent and he knew she did not consent. Her allegation is that there were express or implied threats by Epstein, Maxwell and/or Andrew (so she doesn't actually specify who made these threats) and, in essence, that he "must have known". This is a single sentence in her 15-page complaint. Unless she is willing to go a lot further than that regarding the alleged encounter in London, there is no case for Andrew to answer in the UK.

Whatever you may think of the Met, there will be no criminal prosecution if they don't believe there is enough evidence to support one.

I agree. What on earth makes you think I don't ?

However that isn't the only criteria for the Met not to pursue a criminal case. Just one of them. Others are:

• the suspect is a copper (see: Wayne Couzens)
• the victims isn't worth it (see: too many to list)
• or, most simply: they have been told not to.

@SerendipityJane

Whatever you may think of the Met, there will be no criminal prosecution if they don't believe there is enough evidence to support one.

I agree. What on earth makes you think I don't ?

However that isn't the only criteria for the Met not to pursue a criminal case. Just one of them. Others are:

• the suspect is a copper (see: Wayne Couzens)
• the victims isn't worth it (see: too many to list)
• or, most simply: they have been told not to.

They did pursue Wayne Couzens though. He is in jail.

I do like the idea of Andrew being banished to a foreign country. He’s been an embarrassment for years. He should settle with VR to avoid an embarrassing trial for his family and then bugger off

He should fuck off overseas…

Why should any foreign country have to be inflicted with him? He’s a product of Britain and the British establishment and, to a degree, the British people. They shouldn’t get to impose him on a foreign country just because they’re sick of him. That’s a really horribly dismissive attitude towards foreign countries.

Not for his previous sexual offence prior to attacking Sarah.

@PlanktonsComputerWife

Not for his previous sexual offence prior to attacking Sarah.

I agree, some horrific mistakes were made and I’m not in any way sticking up for the met but I was pointing out that it was inaccurate to state that he wasn’t pursued by the met. He was and is in jail.

@sammylady37

I do like the idea of Andrew being banished to a foreign country. He’s been an embarrassment for years. He should settle with VR to avoid an embarrassing trial for his family and then bugger off

He should fuck off overseas…

Why should any foreign country have to be inflicted with him? He’s a product of Britain and the British establishment and, to a degree, the British people. They shouldn’t get to impose him on a foreign country just because they’re sick of him. That’s a really horribly dismissive attitude towards foreign countries.

I agree.

Melinda Gates divorced Bill.
Hilary is, as ever, standing by her man.

[quote Roussette]They were 12 year old triplet girls.

nypost.com/2019/08/19/jeffrey-epstein-was-sent-three-12-year-old-french-girls-as-birthday-gift/[/quote]
I wondered where you all were!

Rousette haven’t seen this story before. Horrific.

The transcripts I’ve read of the deliberations today don’t look good for PA. keeping everything crossed

Just watching the news and it sounds as if the judge isn't on PA's side .

@SerendipityJane

He should fuck off overseas and live quietly in exile like his great-uncle did.

Are there any fascist regimes around he could praise on the way ?

Russia? Putin's probably got kompromat on PA anyway.

I did suggest Russia. But they can be rather careless with Royals.

Hillary Clinton is an odd one. I bought and tried to read her autobiography in 2004. I couldn't finish it because it was such a naked pre-cursor to her running for office. Nothing human about it (unlike Obama who wrote his before he even considered running). She comes across as super intelligent but not politically clever in terms of stakeholder engagement. If my DH had been found cheating over and over and over and then was seen on a plane to a known island of depravity I'm not sure if be able to stand by him, but these people live in a different world I suppose.

The Metropolitan Police reviewed the evidence against PA and announced in October that they will not be taking any action against him

Given that all prosecutions in England & Wales are undertaken in the name of the crown, that's hardly surprising. Especially coming from the force that doesn't prosecute or weed out sex offenders in their own ranks.

And whose initials form part of the Met's crest, badge etc?

My own opinion on Hillary standing by Bill is that (at least pre-Trump) there’s no way America would have voted in a woman who had not stood by her man. For all its grandiose statements about being The Land of The Free™️ it is a very conservative country with “traditional” values. Add in that said husband is a former President and she’s stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I guess running for office meant enough to her that she was willing to look the other way, in public at least.

From BBC:

If Judge Lewis Kaplan had been minded to rule swiftly in Prince Andrew's favour to stop the case, he could have done two things immediately today.

First, he could have indicated in court his direction of travel - and secondly he could have torn up the currently tight timetable he has set for the duke to meet Ms Giuffre's requests for documentary evidence - the next important stage in a damages case that's heading for trial.

He did neither. But what he did to, in the dying minutes, is closely question both sides over part of the Epstein deal that had gone unnoticed in the hours since its publication.

Even if Andrew could be properly classed as a "potential defendant" to Ms Giuffre's 2009 Florida claims, her settlement with Epstein says that third parties - meaning someone whose signature was not on the agreement - could not use that agreement in another court without their permission.

Given that Epstein is dead and Ms Giuffre doesn't want Andrew to benefit from the agreement's terms, a strict reading of that paragraph would mean the agreement is irrelevant to her damages case.

The duke's lawyer disputed this - but when Judge Kaplan soon rules on the future of the case, this might just be the most important part of today's hearing.

@LakieLady

The Metropolitan Police reviewed the evidence against PA and announced in October that they will not be taking any action against him

Given that all prosecutions in England & Wales are undertaken in the name of the crown, that's hardly surprising. Especially coming from the force that doesn't prosecute or weed out sex offenders in their own ranks.

And whose initials form part of the Met's crest, badge etc?

Members of the Royal Family have been prosecuted before. Princess Anne became the first senior member of the royal family to get a criminal conviction when she pleaded guilty to an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

As per my previous post, on the information available, the decision by the Met is unsurprising. There is simply no evidence on which Andrew could be prosecuted. The only crime he may have committed in the UK is rape, but proving that would require VG to give evidence and be a lot more detailed than she has so far. Her current evidence falls a long way short of that required to secure a conviction and it is not clear that she would be willing to give evidence in the UK courts.

Sadly @cavemum I'm not sure America would vote in a woman even if she baked apple pies daily and was an actually literal (not possible) Saint with 10 children named after the biblical disciples. Remember this is only single country in the western world with 0 (literally this time) maternity leave. I agree though trying to get ahead as a divorcee would be impossible.

Even if Andrew could be properly classed as a "potential defendant" to Ms Giuffre's 2009 Florida claims, her settlement with Epstein says that third parties - meaning someone whose signature was not on the agreement - could not use that agreement in another court without their permission

This bit is crucial isn't it??

If JE were alive, maybe. But he isn't

A question for the legally experienced on here.....

If Judge Kaplan rules that the civil case can proceed, is Andrew obligated to attend the trial to give evidence or can a lawyer do that on his behalf? (Or via video link given that we are in Covid times).

I'm wondering whether he will be forced to answer questions in person, or if he will be allowed to continue hiding in his mum's properties and let others answer for him?

I think it's looking bleak for PA after this news .

@Roussette

Even if Andrew could be properly classed as a "potential defendant" to Ms Giuffre's 2009 Florida claims, her settlement with Epstein says that third parties - meaning someone whose signature was not on the agreement - could not use that agreement in another court without their permission

This bit is crucial isn't it??

If JE were alive, maybe. But he isn't

Except the agreement doesn't actually say that. It says, "Additionally, as a material consideration in settling, First Parties and Second Parties agree that the terms of this Settlement Agreement are not intended to be used by any other person nor be admissible in any proceeding or case against or involving Jeffrey Epstein, either civil or criminal." Nothing there about permission.

It feels like the judge wants to interpret this in a way that will allow the trial to proceed. I have a problem with this as it means the judge may effectively be saying, "yes, this document means the Giuffre cannot take action against anyone who was a potential defendant in her case against Epstein, but they can't use this document in any proceedings, so they don't actually get any of the protection this document was supposed to give them". That feels wrong to me. If he wants to rule that Andrew was not a potential defendant, I still think he would be wrong, but I would be much more comfortable with that than with an interpretation that effectively renders much of the relevant clause meaningless.