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.

@LadyEloise1

To me, this mistrial looks more like a massive cockup on the administrative front. Perhaps there's are standard forms, standard phrases that work most of the time just fine. For this particular trial, they really needed a rewrite, with particular attention to readability, reading age and more detailed questioning in the relevant subject area. No doubt that will happen for a 2nd trial.

However, I agree with you that other interested parties might very well have been looking for opportunities. Certain news outlets have seized on an opportunity with all the force they can muster, for example, but probably wouldn't go as far as bribing a juror in advance!

DM (won't link) has an interesting article on the chalet.

Apparently bought with a 'mortgage' and private funding from the Queen. It was split between Andrew and Fergie as deemed too big to go to a single foreign buyer under Swiss law (nicely representative bit of ducking and diving there).

He's now pushing to sell it to pay the legal fees as Mummy won't but if Mummy coughed for it in the first place she's still effectively paying them in the usual royal smoke and mirrors style.

And VG says she won't settle out of court.

Draws breath

[quote SpaceshiptoMars]@LadyEloise1

To me, this mistrial looks more like a massive cockup on the administrative front. Perhaps there's are standard forms, standard phrases that work most of the time just fine. For this particular trial, they really needed a rewrite, with particular attention to readability, reading age and more detailed questioning in the relevant subject area. No doubt that will happen for a 2nd trial.

However, I agree with you that other interested parties might very well have been looking for opportunities. Certain news outlets have seized on an opportunity with all the force they can muster, for example, but probably wouldn't go as far as bribing a juror in advance![/quote]
There are no standard forms. The judge, prosecution and defence put together an agreed pre-trial questionnaire for jurors. That is different for every trial. The questions concerned seemed clear enough to me.

The questions concerned seemed clear enough to me.

You are a lawyer I would have broken the questions down into smaller parts, and aimed for a reading age of about 8, to be on the safe side for this! The juror is going to have learning difficulties, dyslexia, etc lined up for any court appearance.

Mirror link about Chalet

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-andrew-sell-17m-swiss-25876715

With legal bills mounting over his legal battle with Virginia Giuffre, Prince Andrew is in a race against time to raise funds to pay them.

And the Duke is now trying to force through the sale of his £17million Swiss chalet, as it emerged the Queen will not pay his spiralling costs.

(contd)

@SerendipityJane

Mirror link about Chalet

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-andrew-sell-17m-swiss-25876715

With legal bills mounting over his legal battle with Virginia Giuffre, Prince Andrew is in a race against time to raise funds to pay them.

And the Duke is now trying to force through the sale of his £17million Swiss chalet, as it emerged the Queen will not pay his spiralling costs.

(contd)

Interesting. I wonder if the Queen has never paid any of PA legal costs (when many people, including myself, suspected she had been), or if she is now refusing to not pay anything further moving forwards?

If the latter, I wonder why she is deciding to stop funding it. The article seems to suggest pressure from PC and PW. I wonder if the Queen has also been advised about how her funding would make the monarchy look to the general public/taxpayer?

Apparently Switzerland has an extradition treaty with the US, so PA may as well sell it now. He won't be using it again ....

@SerendipityJane

Apparently Switzerland has an extradition treaty with the US, so PA may as well sell it now. He won't be using it again ....

Why not? The US hasn't even started a criminal investigation against him, much less started extradition proceedings. And, of course, we have an extradition treaty with the US as well.

I imagine she has been paying the legal fees (I read that they were coming out of Duchy funds) but has said that if this moves forward with a trial (or whatever its called) enough is enough. I read somewhere that the legal fees were over a million already...

My big question is... how did he afford £17million on a chalet in the first place. It's obscene.

My big question is... how did he afford £17million on a chalet in the first place. It's obscene

Exactly, his finances really should be investigated. If he's happy to let GE pay off his wife's debts I reckon there might be more shadey dealings .

Whilst I think it is unlikely that the juror was 'bought' before the trial (mainly because it is too risky that he would be able to change the result). Surely they could have realised, after reading the forms, that there could be an opportunity here after the trial. It could be that they knew this person/s had been abused but purposely ignored it thinking they could use it if GM was found guilty. Let's face it there are many people who want their 15 minutes of fame and I don't think it would have taken much to get this juror to talk.

So sorry but this still absolutely stinks to me.

Secondly how would they run a second trial? As I understand it one of the main arguments was that the offences took place so long ago that the memories/recall of the women were questionned by the defense. What happens if these poor women have to take the stand again and give a slightly different version? won't the defense team just be all over this and it will be farcical?

@Vapeyvapevape

My big question is... how did he afford £17million on a chalet in the first place. It's obscene

Exactly, his finances really should be investigated. If he's happy to let GE pay off his wife's debts I reckon there might be more shadey dealings .

Indeed. According to the Mirror link above, he owns the chalet with SF! How on earth can she afford part of a £17million chalet, when she had to rely on someone else to negotiate her debts down, and clear them off?!

How on earth can she afford part of a £17 million chalet, when she had to rely on someone else to negotiate her debts down, and clear them off?!

There are none as greedy as those that have it all.

My big question is... how did he afford £17million on a chalet in the first place. It's obscene.

My own thoughts are that there’s bound to be an oligarch or Sheikh involved somewhere along the line. It’s all so incestuous and “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”.

Have PA or SF inherited money from anyone? If PA owns this chalet couldn't he give half of it to SF so both names are on the deeds, without her necessarily paying anything?

"According to the Mirror link above, he owns the chalet with SF!"

They needed two names to be able to buy it-doesn't mean that she has actually paid anything.

I think there might have been a loan(?) from HMQ plus a mortgage which he has defaulted on & HMQ paid.

Mind you, I may have read that in the Mail, so whether or not there's any truth at all to it...

Whilst I think it is unlikely that the juror was 'bought' before the trial (mainly because it is too risky that he would be able to change the result). Surely they could have realised, after reading the forms, that there could be an opportunity here after the trial. It could be that they knew this person/s had been abused but purposely ignored it thinking they could use it if GM was found guilty. Let's face it there are many people who want their 15 minutes of fame and I don't think it would have taken much to get this juror to talk.

Well, there's the who, the how and the why. Perhaps it was possible to switch the forms given to the panel when a particular candidate stepped up. You could argue that for either prosecution or defence. Prosecution might have wanted to load the jury with extra sensitive jurors. Defence might have wanted to trip the juror up after the verdict.

It is weird that 2 jurors were missed though. But I'm just as inclined to put that down to inattention and over-wordy forms as high stakes jury rigging.

I might veer more to the prosecution trying to rig it, actually. Home advantage and the chance of reeling in other big player offenders, given a successful Maxwell conviction.

@Noisyprat

Whilst I think it is unlikely that the juror was 'bought' before the trial (mainly because it is too risky that he would be able to change the result). Surely they could have realised, after reading the forms, that there could be an opportunity here after the trial. It could be that they knew this person/s had been abused but purposely ignored it thinking they could use it if GM was found guilty. Let's face it there are many people who want their 15 minutes of fame and I don't think it would have taken much to get this juror to talk.

So sorry but this still absolutely stinks to me.

Secondly how would they run a second trial? As I understand it one of the main arguments was that the offences took place so long ago that the memories/recall of the women were questionned by the defense. What happens if these poor women have to take the stand again and give a slightly different version? won't the defense team just be all over this and it will be farcical?

They had no way of knowing pre-trial that this person had completed the forms incorrectly. If they had known pre-trial, they would have wanted him off the jury. Post trial, it is pretty normal for jurors in high profile cases in the US to give interviews to the press. I don't see any reason to say that this stinks. In terms of the way things happen in the US, this isn't particularly unusual.

They would run a second trial in the same way as the first. Of course, the prosecution now know the line the defence will take and vice versa, so it won't be exactly the same. In the US, roughly 10% of federal cases end in a retrial, either because of a hung jury or due to a mistrial. Such things are far more common in the USA than the UK.

I’m sure I read a couple of years ago that they hadn’t paid in full so the vendor was suing them.

Yes Gilmore I think that was the case. The vendor was suing and I'm not sure what I believe, but the final £7M was paid off by the Queen according to some news reports.
And not according to others.
How on earth he funded one of the most expensive properties in Verbier, god alone knows. Reports say it was a mixture of 'private funding' and money from Mum.

@Gilmorehill

I’m sure I read a couple of years ago that they hadn’t paid in full so the vendor was suing them.

They bought it with a mortgage and private funding from the Queen, according to the Mail. They were sued by the previous owner after allegedly missing a payment, but the case was dropped, apparently after they agreed to repay the previous owner once they sell the chalet.

That sounds better! He must be desperate to sell it then especially if it's true he now has to fund his legal bills

Even without a trial it’s all starting to unravel for PA. I’m loving every minute.

I wonder when the decision will be announced regarding his trial .