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.

@SerendipityJane

This happened just a few years ago and the police were appalling.This happened just a few years ago and the police were appalling.

They still are.

The met certainly seem to be living up to that at the moment.

@RoyalFamilyFan

The allegation relates to 2001. Not the 1990s.

It’s still the same era and views I’m talking about.

I sincerely doubt this was the only and first time he’d done it.

Sorry if I have missed this on the thread, but how can JE's lawyer have relied on the agreement to get his case dismissed in NY but not PA? I assume because PA was not an employee for example?

Of course there will be other offences. You have to be incredibly brave to fight back against the rich and famous.

The Rotherham cases were complicated by the race issue, it wasn't just that the girls weren't believed.

@DuncinToffee thanks for that link.

Giuffre, in turn, only has to succeed on one of these points – though her lawyers will need to explain what Other Potential Defendants means if not the likes of Andrew

Could they say it was to cover GM I wonder?

Could they say it was to cover GM I wonder?

GM tried to use a similarly worded clause from Epstein's 2007 so-called 'sweetheart deal' . She failed in her bid as the wording was deemd to broad to include anyone who wasn't explicitly named.

Other Epstein aides suspected of similar actions were named individually which is why I assume they aren't currently languishing in jail.

In other news apparently if the case proceeds further allegations against PA could be brought to light. If that's the case the man could actually bring about the downfall of the monarchy IMO.

deemed

In other news apparently if the case proceeds further allegations against PA could be brought to light. If that's the case the man could actually bring about the downfall of the monarchy IMO

Christ, what else has he done?

I reckon there will be a big private settlement for VG . Is it really is tax payers that will pay it? In which case Surely we should know much it’s going to cost and we should be able to seize some assets.

Christ, what else has he done?

No idea. All a bit vaguely worded but definitely not good news for him:

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/lawyers-prince-andrew-sex-claims-court-virginia-giuffre-epstein-b975006.html

I was wondering if it would embolden others to come forward if it succeeds. There is often a snow ball effect when initial traction is gained.

@stairway it bloody better not come out of the tax payers money! The Queen will probably cough up, which in my opinion makes her complicit in all this.

Can VG reject an out of court settlement and insist it goes to court?

It's funny because until 3 or 4 years ago I used to just be a bit 'meh' about the monarchy. Thought it was daft and enjoyed the royal weddings for the spectacle but didn't care much either way. Now I care, now I really want them either gone or slimmed down to Swedish style. Based on a recommendation from mn I read the book 'so what do you do' and now I'm disgusted with the whole set up. Can't bear Prince Charles talking about being eco whilst flying a shoe horn hundreds of miles in an empty jet, can't bear William banging on about bloody Africans having too many children when his 3 fly in helicopters weekly and Andrew...well...this thread says it all really. I honestly think the Queen did take it seriously for the majority of her reign but now I think it's all a bit sick and sordid.

Is it really is tax payers that will pay it?

Her maj will probably sigh and cough up but given her 'private funds' accrue at the expense of the public purse, yep the bill will fall on the 'normal people' albeit indirectly.

Surely these sorts of deals can’t protect people from criminal charges in the US? I don’t get it. I get that this is a civil suit against PA, but how could GM have claimed protection from Epstein’s deal other than for civil suits? You can’t surely just pay your way out of being prosecuted for crimes? Do we have this sort of thing in the U.K?

Epstein's deal was on criminal charges and saw him allocated a minimal sentence in an open prison by pleading guilty to lesser charges, registering as a sex offender and paying restitution to victims identified by the FBI.

The deal named four aides but didn't specify Maxwell which meant her bid to have her criminal case thrown out failed.

Hopefully the same reasoning will apply to PA in a civil case.

@DingleyDel

Surely these sorts of deals can’t protect people from criminal charges in the US? I don’t get it. I get that this is a civil suit against PA, but how could GM have claimed protection from Epstein’s deal other than for civil suits? You can’t surely just pay your way out of being prosecuted for crimes? Do we have this sort of thing in the U.K?

The deal with Giuffre was a civil matter and could protect Andrew from being sued by Giuffre.

The 2007 deal with Epstein was a plea bargain with the US authorities, as part of which the US agreed not to institute criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein. This wasn't a question of anyone paying their way out of being prosecuted for crimes. This was Epstein agreeing to plead guilty to some charges in return for others being dropped and a guarantee of immunity for any potential co-conspirators. It was widely criticised in the US when it came to light on the basis that the authorities had given too much away.

The kind of deal that VG struck with Epstein happens in the UK. In any civil litigation, the parties are encouraged to make a deal where possible rather than have the courts decide. Just as in the US, such deals cannot protect people from criminal charges.

The plea bargain doesn't happen in the UK. We do have some plea bargains, where the prosecution agrees to drop more serious charges in return for the defendant pleading guilty on less serious charges. But plea bargains in the US are very different and can involve agreeing the sentence, non-prosecution agreements (as in the Epstein 2007 agreement) and so on.

Missed a sentence in my first paragraph. It should have said:

The deal with Giuffre was a civil matter and could potentially protect Andrew from being sued by Giuffre. However, as it was a civil matter it could not protect anyone from prosecution.

CathyorClaire

If I remember correctly, the sweetheart deal made with Alex Acosta was ruled to have violated the victims rights so it was declared void anyway, and was the reason Acosta resigned. I may have that wrong though, so I'm happy to be corrected!

The deal named four aides but didn't specify Maxwell which meant her bid to have her criminal case thrown out failed.

That isn't why she failed. The judge decided that the deal only applied to prosecutions in the Southern District of Florida and also that it only covered certain offences, not the ones with which she was charged. The fact it didn't specifically name her was not a factor.

@WhatWouldKalindaDo

CathyorClaire

If I remember correctly, the sweetheart deal made with Alex Acosta was ruled to have violated the victims rights so it was declared void anyway, and was the reason Acosta resigned. I may have that wrong though, so I'm happy to be corrected!

No, it wasn't declared void. It was held not to protect Maxwell for the reasons given in my previous post.

Acosta resigned shortly after Epstein was arrested in 2019 over criticism of his handling of the earlier case. In 2020, the Department of Justice conducted a review which decided that Acosta had shown poor judgement in granting Epstein a non-prosecution agreement and failing to tell his victims about it.

I wonder what the intention behind it was.

Were there others who Epstein would have wanted to protect from prosecution?

If so, who would they likely have been & is it likely that PA would have been one of them?

My thought would be did PA know enough to need protection?

If not, would JE care enough about him to protect him?

prh47bridge

Thanks for the correction, I wasn't sure if I had it right!

@diddl

I wonder what the intention behind it was.

Were there others who Epstein would have wanted to protect from prosecution?

If so, who would they likely have been & is it likely that PA would have been one of them?

My thought would be did PA know enough to need protection?

If not, would JE care enough about him to protect him?

The 2007 agreement? There are diverging views. Some believe this was intended to protect influential people in Epstein's circle, others think it was intended to protect those of his victims who had helped him recruit other victims. It is, of course, possible that it was intended for both purposes.

One of the prosecutors involved says that the deal came about because most of Epstein's victims were refusing to co-operate. Some had hired lawyers to avoid appearing before a grand jury. One had moved to Australia and refused to return calls - the individual involved is not identified but I note that Giuffre moved to Australia in 2002 and didn't relocate to the US until 2013.