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.

How are damages calculated in a civil trial in the US? Is there an income/asset basis at all?

Hasn't VR been accused of introducung under age girls to GM and JE. Do any of them come out of this with their reputations intact.

Lots of the young girls introduced friends and she was one who did. That's why it was referred to as a sexual abuse pyramid scheme.

@KittenCatcher yes girls get blamed all the time for the crimes of rich and powerful men and one woman.

@KittenCatcher

Hasn't VR been accused of introducung under age girls to GM and JE. Do any of them come out of this with their reputations intact.

They were conditioned to believe it was normal and acceptable for wealthy men to rape them.

They are innocent.

Yes. Coercion. Manipulation. Bribery. Threats. Bullying. Fear. Grooming.

All will have played a part

They were conditioned to believe it was normal and acceptable for wealthy men to rape them.

I have a horrible feeling the same could be said for GM.

@PlanktonsComputerWife

Just gotta say.....

I love your name! It makes me smile every time I see it 🤣

@KittenCatcher

I am not sure how this new story alledging VG sent messages and photos of her being with PA and sleeping with him helps either side. He will be called a liar and she will be accused of bragging.

On the information I've seen, I think this helps him more than her. Her claim is based on the alleged sexual encounters being non-consensual. On my reading of her claim, I believe it fails if all sexual encounters were consensual (assuming there were any). Sending a message saying, "I got to sleep with him" and basically telling someone that she couldn't believe she got to sleep with Andrew could be seen as undermining her claim that the encounter was non-consensual. I am not saying that is the correct interpretation, but that is how I would expect the defence to approach it if they use this evidence. If the jury accept that these messages show that an encounter she claims was non-consensual was, in fact, consensual, it would undermine her other claims.

It is still open to Andrew, of course, to claim that these messages were lies - that she was boasting about something that didn't happen.

@SpaceshiptoMars

They were conditioned to believe it was normal and acceptable for wealthy men to rape them.

I have a horrible feeling the same could be said for GM.

GM is supposed to have been a partner in crime. A very different set-up and power dynamic going off. Not all women are innocent victims. Look at Rose West.

@prh47bridge if she was trafficked, then surely she cant consent to sex?

I have a horrible feeling the same could be said for GM.

I think there is probably some truth in that.

[quote RoyalFamilyFan]@prh47bridge if she was trafficked, then surely she cant consent to sex?[/quote]
Yes, she can. As far as the law is concerned, a victim of trafficking can consent to sex provided they do so by choice and have the freedom and capacity to do so. I believe US law is broadly the same as UK law on this point.

There are circumstances in which a trafficked woman is presumed not to consent but that is a rebuttable presumption, i.e. the defence can overturn that presumption if they have clear evidence that she did consent.

Really? You are forced to go to a private island to have sex with rich men and you can still be deemed to have consented? That makes no sense at all.

"On the information I've seen, I think this helps him more than her. Her claim is based on the alleged sexual encounters being non-consensual."

I thought that at first.

But she was 17 at the time & this was her "normal".

She was hardly likely to write "I met him & he raped/assaulted me" as at the time she probably didn't think that it was.

Perhaps she thought that it was OK for the money.

@RoyalFamilyFan

I think you can still be as guilty as, while also having been conditioned to accept the unacceptable. Most women have had some conditioning to that effect and parental wealth doesn't necessarily protect.

@RoyalFamilyFan

Really? You are forced to go to a private island to have sex with rich men and you can still be deemed to have consented? That makes no sense at all.

You can only be deemed to have consented if you have, in fact, done so. If you are forced to have sex you clearly have not consented. But if you are taken to a private island where there are rich men and you choose to have sex with one or more of them without being forced to do so, you have consented.

@diddl

"On the information I've seen, I think this helps him more than her. Her claim is based on the alleged sexual encounters being non-consensual."

I thought that at first.

But she was 17 at the time & this was her "normal".

She was hardly likely to write "I met him & he raped/assaulted me" as at the time she probably didn't think that it was.

Perhaps she thought that it was OK for the money.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that these messages prove she consented. I'm sure her legal team will argue otherwise. But the jury might well take them as indicating consent, especially if they come across as boasting that she's managed to bed Andrew, which it sounds as if they might.

"Just to be clear, I'm not saying that these messages prove she consented. I'm sure her legal team will argue otherwise. But the jury might well take them as indicating consent, especially if they come across as boasting that she's managed to bed Andrew, which it sounds as if they might."

Perhaps it could just muddy things enough?

I'm not saying that these messages prove she consented

Would be more useful, either way, if the messages could still be physically retrieved.

If you are forced to have sex you clearly have not consented

Just to correct myself slightly, that is one of the rebuttable presumptions. If you are forced to have sex it is presumed you did not consent, but the defence can, in theory, overturn that presumption if there is enough evidence that you did, in fact, consent. We don't criminalise BDSM encounters or similar. If someone wants to live out a "sex slave" fantasy, they can provided everyone consents.

Prh47, I fear you are right and this will be used against her to discredit her claim

My take on her saying she 'got to sleep with PA' as , of all the sleaze balls we've had to have sex with, I've been given to royalty. So yes bragging in a way but only in the fact that she was deemed special enough to be chosen for a member of the royal family.

It's all very, very muddy. The witness has pretty strong motivation both to implicate powerful men and to prevent VG collecting a big payout.

Well..... consent means giving permission for something to happen. Surely, if you have been coerced, manipulated or bribed then 'consenting' is under some sort of duress.