Having been out for the evening, I'll respond to a lot of points in one post!
Surely, if you have been coerced, manipulated or bribed then 'consenting' is under some sort of duress.
Accepting a bribe to participate in a sexual act would be classed as consent, otherwise anyone using the services of a sex worker would be committing an offence. Whether manipulation takes away consent is not a simple question. We all try to manipulate other people to do what we want. If a man sweet talks his way into your bed, he has manipulated you but that doesn't mean your consent is not real. Coercion is another matter. If you are coerced, that is not consent.
Why are the women not being advised to keep quiet until the trial?
Which women are being advised to keep quiet? It would certainly be a good idea for the women who gave evidence against Maxwell to keep quiet in case there is a retrial. If they give interviews, it could prejudice a retrial. As far as I am aware, the only woman involved in VG vs Andrew is VG who is keeping quiet.
Jacqueline, I wonder about this too but dont know much about the law. Is it up to her to prove this happened or for him to prove it didnt. Is there any evidence from either or them.
VG is the one making the allegations, so it is up to her to prove that they happened. Andrew does not have to prove that it didn't happen. However, she only has to prove her allegations on the balance of probabilities ("the preponderance of the evidence", to use the US term). She does not have to prove them beyond reasonable doubt.
I'm pretty sure that legal consent isn't possible if the person is trafficked. No matter what their text messages say.
You would be wrong. It is definitely an offence if someone pays or offers to pay for sex with someone who has been trafficked. If someone is being unlawfully detained there is a presumption that they did not consent, but that is a rebuttable presumption - in other words, you can overcome that presumption if you can produce enough evidence that they did, in fact, consent. Legal consent is definitely possible when someone has been trafficked, at least in the UK. Not sure about the US.
Will the prosecution use the News Night interview as evidence, ? I hope so as it proves PA ,IMO, to be a liar.
Don't know about the US but it would have little evidential value in the UK as he was not under caution or under oath.
If you are called as a witness in a civil case do you have to attend?
In the UK, an unwilling witness can be forced to attend, but that doesn't mean they have to be helpful. Not sure about the US.
If he is telling the truth and is innocent then surely he just agrees to the trial if there is one, sues and donates his money to an appropriate charity.
This being the US, where civil cases are heard by jury, the first thing he should do is try everything he can to avoid a trial, as his lawyers are doing. Also, she is taking action against him, not the other way round. He won't be awarded anything if he wins.